Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Pink Zone (U-turnings)

Dr. Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent his ban on U-turning in the pink zone has eased the congestion of traffic in the London area; if he is satisfied with the progress so far made; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) on 23rd March.

Dr. Glyn: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether we can have an assurance that the ban will not be reintroduced for taxis?

Mr. Marples: The ban was taken off because the trade union concerned and the taxi-cab drivers gave a pledge that they would not use the U-turn during congested periods in difficult streets. If they continue to keep their word, the ban will not be reimposed.

Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are very disappointed that he should have taken this retrograde step, because we hope to see a reduction in the number of right-hand turns and particularly the banning of U-turns, which seriously interfere with traffic flow, add to the danger on the road and are generally against the interest of traffic movement? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this with a view to reimposing the ban?

Mr. Marples: Taxi-cabs are a special case. They have a special lock. I consulted the police before taking off the ban and, on balance, we found that provided that taxi-cab drivers tried to play the game with the public it was worth while taking it off. Some people take a couple of bags, one in each hand, to a taxi rank in the centre of the road and there might be danger of an accident. On balance—and it was a very fine balance—it was decided to take the ban off for taxis.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman stand by the only sensible decision he has come to since he became Minister of Transport?

Mr. Marples: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the usual courtesy and kindness of that nice remark to me.

Railway Level Crossings

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Minister of Transport what is his present policy with regard to replacing level crossings by road bridges; what arrangements he makes for initiating such replacements; and by whom the cost is borne.

Mr. Marples: The elimination of level crossings, where they cause serious delay to traffic, is an important factor in the selection of schemes for road improvement and as the road programme develops they will be progressively replaced. The initiation of schemes rests with the highway authority concerned, who also bear the cost, apart from any contribution made by the British Transport Commission in respect of the relief from their obligation to maintain and operate the crossing. The Government meet the whole of the highway authority's liability on trunk roads and make grants towards it for approved schemes on classified roads.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, would he not consider a more ambitious programme, with a view to trying to eliminate these level crossings in the next three or four years? If necessary, would he introduce legislation to ensure that this can be borne as a road improvement? Would he not agree that this is perhaps one of the few ways in which we can help both the road users and the railways at about the same time?

Mr. Marples: I agree that it is desirable to eliminate as many level crossings as we can, but some are more important than others. Abolition is desirable on three grounds: it eliminates delays in road traffic, it saves money for the railways, and it reduces accidents.

M.1 (Anti-dazzle Screen)

Wing Commander Grant-Ferris: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now reached any definite conclusions about anti-dazzle screening along the centre of M.1.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet received a report from the Road Research Laboratory on the experimental anti-dazzle fence on the M.1; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: I have just received a report from the Road Research Laboratory which is now being studied. The experimental length of anti-dazzle screening apparently gives satisfactory protection from glare. Before I can decide whether screening must be extended, I must consider other factors, including safety, amenity and cost.

Wing Commander Grant-Ferris: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many people who think that such a screen will be not only a bad eyesore but will not prove to be a good thing from the point of view of antidazzle? Will he further consult the nurserymen of England, who are ready and able to give him sufficient plants of either privet or beech, which could be beautifully staggered, which would do the job properly and would not be difficult to trim?

Mr. Marples: I considered that and I asked the Landscape Advisory Committee to look at this for me. It advocates fencing as a temporary measure until a hedge, preferably of native bushes of a non-ornamental type, is fully grown; but one has to wait for a hedge to grow to the right height.

A.6, Helsington

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to provide a dual carriageway on the A.6 road at Three Mile Hill, Helsington, in the county of Westmorland, in view of its

dangerous condition, which has resulted in sixty-nine accidents on this stretch of road during the last four years, with three deaths in the last six months.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): This scheme will be started as soon as entry to the necessary land is obtained.

Sir W. Wakefield: But is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that this has gone on for several years and that the delays over the acquisition of land have not been taking place at the Westmorland end but in his Department? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter, because it is one of real urgency? People are being killed, it is a dangerous piece of road and the delay is taking place in his Department.

Mr. Hay: With respect, I think my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the delay is entirely due to us. Originally we had a small scheme for the removal of a black spot. It was then decided, rightly, to make the scheme larger and to provide a length of dual carriageway. In recent weeks we have been held up a little over the landscaping of this section which I think my hon. Friend knows runs through an area of great natural beauty. We are endeavouring to get on with the scheme as soon as we can get entry to the land.

Traffic Conditions, London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now able to announce his proposals for improving traffic conditions in London.

Mr. Marples: On 15th February, I announced my decision to establish a new London Traffic Management Unit and the appointment of Dr. Charlesworth as its head. The Road Traffic Amendment Bill, which has a special application to London, will, I hope, shortly be in the hands of hon. Members. I will make further announcements about my plans from time to time.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will be received with great disappointment? Why is he continuing to barricade himself behind a series of committees— [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—and holding up the prospect of any improvement until some Bill or other is put on


the Statute Book? Is there not anything he can do in the meantime, or is he just bogged down like London traffic?

Mr. Marples: This House of Commons would be very aggrieved if the Minister took action unless it had put certain rights on the Statute Book. I can only act according to the law which this House of Commons has passed.

Mr. Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the pledge given by his hon. Friend that we shall have the Bill before Easter? Can he tell us when we shall have a chance to enact it?

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I hope it will be presented before Easter.

Hanger Lane Underpass

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Transport when it is now expected that the Hanger Lane underpass on Western Avenue will be open for traffic.

Mr. Hay: I hope the underpass will be open this summer.

Road Safety

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to bring forward further measures to improve road safety, in view of the recent rise in road accidents.

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he proposes to take to deal with the increasingly serious position revealed by the Preliminary Tables, 1959. of Road Accidents in Great Britain issued by the Statistics Division of his Department; and whether, in view of the fact that the numbers of deaths and serious accidents arising from the use of motor cycles is so large, he will introduce immediately legislation to deal with the matter

Mr. Marples: I have nothing at present to add to the Answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Bristol. South East (Mr. Benn) on 9th March.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of people killed in December rose by 26 per cent. compared with the previous year and the number killed in January rose by 33 per cent. compared with the previous year? Has the right hon. Gentleman given up everything for Lent?

Mr. Marples: No, Sir; I have not given up that sort of thing for Lent. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should put it that way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The casualties on the roads are not a subject for joking. If any hon. Member has any constructive suggestion to make, it will be considered, but the mere making of laws by themselves will not abolish the human error which causes most accidents.

Mr. Janner: Why is the right hon. Gentleman side-stepping like this? Is he not aware that a few weeks ago a Bill was introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in which very practical suggestions were put forward to cope with this very serious situation? Is he aware that the situation does not brook of any delay? Why does he not introduce some Measure to deal with some of the difficulties, if not all of them? I am sure that he appreciates the urgency of the matter. That being so. will he not, instead of waiting for further reports to come forward, deal without delay with points which can be dealt with now?

Mr. Marples: A great deal of endeavour goes on in this regard on the part of local authorities, Government Departments, and individuals. Any hon. Member can get in touch with his local safety council and offer whatever help he can give in this respect. I am certain that the two hon. Gentlemen who have asked supplementary questions are in very close contact with their local road safety committees in an effort to help.

Captain Pilkington: Will my right hon. Friend publish, in percentages, every month the errors which cause these accidents? Might not that bring home to drivers and others what the real causes are?

Mr. Marples: We publish the information, but not necessarily the percentages.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill which he has promised before Easter will give the House any opportunity to write into the law of the land further measures designed to reduce the danger on the roads?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman had better wait until the Bill is introduced, because it is fairly extensive in


scope. Anything which is designed to promote a freer flow of traffic ipso facto reduces the possibility of accidents.

Whitton Avenue, Wembley

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the number of accidents resulting in death or injury which have occurred in Whitton Avenue, along the boundary between Wembley and Ealing, in recent months; and how this compares with previous periods

Mr. Hay: In the six months from September, 1959, to February, 1960, there were two fatal and eight injury accidents in Whitton Avenue along the boundary between Wembley and Ealing. In the corresponding months a year earlier there were two fatal and eighteen injury accidents.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are serious accidents along this road? There is only one pedestrian crossing between the junction with Bridgewater Road and the point where Whitton Avenue runs wholly into Ealing. Will my hon. Friend look into the possibility of providing more crossings?

Mr. Hay: The figures are disturbing. A lot of the trouble may be due to the fact that Whitton Avenue is temporarily carrying a heavier volume of traffic because of construction of the underpass at Hanger Lane. I will look at the question of the provision of more pedestrian crossings but without giving an undertaking that we can necessarily provide them.

Hyde Park (Entrances)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is proposing to take to reduce the present traffic congestion outside the entrances and exits at the western end of Hyde Park.

Mr. Marples: Arrangements will shortly be completed for an experimental alteration to the means of entry into Hyde Park at Victoria Gate to eliminate the right-hand turn from the Bayswater Road. Traffic will instead proceed by way of Stanhope Terrace and Brook Street and cross the Bayswater Road at right angles under the control of traffic signals. So far as Alexandra Gate is concerned, I have nothing to add to the

Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend on 23rd March.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that much of the congestion at these two gates is due to lack of adequate communication between North and South? Will he take steps to see that Kensington Palace Gardens is turned from a private road into a public road? That would greatly ease the congestion at these two places in Hyde Park.

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question about that the other day, and I thought that he was given a wholly satisfactory answer. I think that the London Traffic Management Unit should consider the position at Alexandra Gate very carefully and study it scientifically before we decide what to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Vehicles (Hire-Purchase)

Dr. Alan Glyn: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making it compulsory for a vehicle bought on hire-purchase to be registered in the hire-purchase company's name until all payments are discharged so as to protect a third party purchasing a vehicle without knowledge of the hire-purchase debt.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. There are no powers under which I could require this without new legislation.

Dr. Glyn: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that the only effective way of ensuring that this hire-purchase obligation is known to the purchaser is to endorse the log book? Is he further aware that similar endorsements are already made on log books where cars are not allowed to be sold if they have been bought under export orders?

Mr. Marples: The registered owner is not necessarily the legal owner. In law it is the person who keeps and uses the car, and unless there is an amendment in the law I could not do what my hon. Friend wishes me to do.

Mr. Mellish: Is there not something in what the hon. Member for Clapham


(Dr. Alan Glyn) says, in the sense of trying to protect the person who buys a vehicle without the knowledge that it is held on hire-purchase? If the right hon. Gentleman needs an amendment of the law, would he not take the advice of the police and of other legal people? If he does, he will find that we on this side of the House are very co-operative in trying to do something sensible.

Mr. Marples: If the Opposition is cooperative in trying to do something sensible, I will do my best and will consult the police as the hon. Member suggests.

Motor-Cycle Accidents

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Minister of Transport when he intends to publish the further information he has received regarding motor-cycle accidents.

Mr. Hay: We expect to receive a full report on the survey of motor-cycle accidents in about two months. If, as I hope, some preliminary information becomes available in the meantime, we will consider whether it is suitable for immediate publication.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep public concern about the present scale of motorcycle accidents, and will he not agree that Members of Parliament and the public should be allowed to see these figures so that we can form our own opinion as to the wisdom of recommendations made over 2½ years ago by the Road Safety Committee concerning the age of motor cyclists?

Mr. Hay: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, we are certainly aware of the disquiet. As to the second part, I would remind my hon. Friend that, in the debate on the Road Traffic (Motor Cycles and Mopeds) Bill, I said that we would be ready to consider the publication of those figures when we have them.

Mr. Mellish: Since it is known that there has been a steep rise in the number of deaths as a result of motor cycles, and referring to the debate mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, does he not remember that a committee was established by this House seven years ago

which recommended that there should be consultation with the manufacturers of motor cycles to get their co-operation before they sold them to anyone holding an "L" licence? After all, the Government have been warned about this for a long time.

Mr. Hay: I cannot say what has been done about that without notice. It does not arise under this Question.

Nationality Plates

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Transport, in view of the decision of the Dutch Government to refuse entry to foreign vehicles not carrying nationality plates, what other countries require motorists going abroad from Great Britain to display G.B. plates.

Mr. Hay: Under both the 1926 International Convention on Motor Traffic and the 1949 Convention on Road and Motor Transport motor vehicles must display nationality plates if they are to be granted the privileges of those Conventions. Apart from the United Kingdom, there are 104 countries and territories party to these Conventions; I have no information about how many of these enforce the requirement to the point of refusing entry to vehicles not carrying nationality plates.

Mr. Dodds: Is not that a little vague? If a person wants to take his car to the Continent for his holiday, must he have nationality plates on it?

Mr. Hay: The answer to that question is, Yes, Sir, he must do so under the Convention.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the proposed tunnel under the Channel.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir. I have only just received a copy of the International Study Group's report on the project.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that if the report is favourable Her Majesty's Government's intentions towards the project will also be favourable? Would he not agree that the forging of links,


both moral and spiritual, between ourselves and the Continent, and particularly between ourselves and our French neighbours, is extremely desirable, and that this would be such a link?

Mr. Marples: I think that anything that can increase the friendship and the unity between this country and Europe is desirable. However, the report arrived jess than 24 hours ago, and I do not think it unreasonable to ask for time to look at it.

Mr. Gower: Do not the proposals for the tunnel envisage only a railway? If such a vast project is eventually to be contemplated, should it not include a roadway as well as a railway?

Mr. Marples: I would rather not discuss the report until I have studied it closely, but it envisages two tunnels, one each way, for railways but not a roadway, the reason, I understand, being a technical one—the difficulty of ventilation.

Vehicles (Inspection)

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Transport by what date he expects that the compulsory inspection of old vehicles will become law.

Mr. Marples: I have nothing at present to add to the information I gave on 23rd March in reply to a similar Question by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss).

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has nothing to add. Is he aware that that is exactly what we are complaining about? Does he appreciate that four years have gone by since the recommendation was made, and that his Department should have been able to overcome the legal difficulties in that time? We are asking him now to say when he expects the new regulations will become law.

Mr. Marples: I said seven days ago that the drafting of the regulations was proceeding urgently and that I would report again to the House at the earliest possible moment, and I think it will be a question of weeks only.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman have an inquiry made into the braking capacity of not only old cars but modern cars, and will he also inquire

into the safety glass which is installed in some of the older cars and modern cars, because the prevalence of windscreen shattering in both old and modern cars is terrible?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman has a Question on the Order Paper about glass, and perhaps we may leave the subject until we reach that Question. With regard to braking, I agree that modern cars as well as old cars should be tested. However, we must take first things first, and what we want to test first of all are the cars which are more than ten years old. I must confess to the House that I had my own car tested and it did not comply with the braking requirements, and so I had the brakes altered.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman referred in a recent speech to the four years' wrangling which has caused this delay. Does he not agree that if the Government had accepted the proposal that we put forward that the testing stations should be run either by the State or by municipal authorities there would not have been four years' wrangling?

Mr. Marples: I have never made a speech suggesting that there have been four years' wrangling. Therefore, the assumption on which the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is based is wholly erroneous.

Vehicle Direction Indicators

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has completed his discussions with the motor manufacturers regarding vehicle direction indicators; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: Since these discussions began new recommendations have been agreed in large part by a Working Party of the Economic Commission for Europe which it is expected most European countries will adopt. It is important that we should keep in step with Continental countries, and I am continuing the discussions with the motor manufacturers and others on this basis.

Mr. Johnson: While I appreciate that it is desirable to bring in the other countries, might I point out that it was about


a year ago that the then Parliamentary Secretary told me that discussions had been started with the manufacturers, but it was on 15th July last that he told my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir G. Wills) that he was near reaching agreement? Is it not time we had a little more progress?

Mr. Marples: The Economic Commission for Europe had a meeting to discuss this matter in October, 1959. As a result of that, we are about to make representations to vehicle manufacturers and users about the considerations. However, I regard it as important that an agreement of this sort should be international rather than that each country should adopt its own measures.

Lorries, Dagenham

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will increase the number of enforcement officers to check up on the roadworthiness of lorries licensed in Dagenham and surrounding areas and the accuracy of log books submitted by their drivers.

Mr. Hay: The number of enforcement officers employed in the Metropolitan Traffic Area has recently been increased, and I have no reason to suppose that the present complement covering the Dagenham area is inadequate. I shall, of course, be glad to examine any case which the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

Mr. Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman check up on the matter of log books, because in a great many cases evidence has been brought to my attention that two sets of log books are prepared—one to be returned officially and one containing, the facts. Will he, for the protection of the public, ensure that the books which show the hours worked are really returned?

Mr. Hay: It is the duty of our enforcement officers to go into matters of that kind. I would be grateful to the hon. Member for details of such cases as are brought to his notice.

Mr. Mellish: Is the hon. Member aware that the trade unions are very much concerned about this problem, that it is largely due to the denationalisation policy of the Government, which has meant that there are now far more

C-licence holders than previously, and that this is creating a great number of problems, which means more enforcement officers are needed?

Mr. Hay: I have seldom heard such an hypothesis erected on such false foundations.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the lorries owned by certain firms, of which the names have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dagenham, are operated to the public safety; and what hours were actually worked by their drivers in the past four weeks.

Mr. Hay: I am having inquiries made and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Road Accidents (Vehicular Mechanical Defects)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will ask the Road Research Laboratory to make a new investigation on the incidence of vehicular mechanical defects in causing road accidents.

Mr. Marples: The Road Research Laboratory is constantly investigating the circumstances in which road accidents occur, either at our request or on its own initiative. I do not think that a new investigation into the incidence of mechanical defects in relation to road accidents would add materially to the information already in our possession on this subject.

Mr. Strauss: If the right hon. Gentleman does not ask for a new investigation, will he, in order to prevent further delay, look at the Laboratory's last investigation and its conclusions that in 20 per cent. of the road accidents which occur in this country some mechanical defect is a contributory cause? Will he bear that conclusion in mind?

Mr. Marples: I will, but again—first things first. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's recent question: the first thing is to get the vehicle testing in before we start making any more investigations. I will try to do that as quickly as possible.

Mr. Short: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that our statistics about


the causes of road accidents are woefully inadequate? He agreed about this himself some time ago. What steps is he taking to improve the statistical analysis?

Mr. Marples: I agree. The analysis we make is formed on the wrong basis. It is carried out by the police, and I have asked the Road Research Laboratory to carry out a very large investigation into a number of accidents, not necessarily only those caused by mechanical defects, but into all defects, human error, and so on.

Staggered Working Hours

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport what the result has been of the London Travel Committee's campaign to stagger working hours.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make periodical statements about progress made by his Department and the London Travel Committee with the staggering of working hours in Central London to relieve pressure on the Central Line and other parts of the London Transport system.

Mr. Marples: Since 1957 some 240 firms have made arrangements for staggering the hours of more than 32,000 staff. To this the London Travel Committee has made a substantial contribution, and its campaign continues. I will, when appropriate, make further statements about the progress of its efforts.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the London Travel Committee, one of the many committees with which the Minister surrounds himself, has been engaged in this campaign for two years and that 30,000 out of the 1,100,000 people who pour into London daily is a very small percentage? Will he try to get something done about it before I become too pessimistic about him altogether?

Mr. Marples: Nothing would grieve me more than that the hon. Member should become pessimistic. It must be remembered that there is no quick method of implementing the staggering of hours. Schemes must be worked out on a local basis. We cannot dictate to people or force them to stagger hours.

If we could dictate to them it would be much easier, but in a democracy this problem is not very easy of solution.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents and I myself suffer great hardship in travelling on the Central Line and that we should be grateful for and glad to hear about all the efforts which can be made to relieve the congestion?

Mr. Marples: I agree with my hon. Friend. The more we can do to try to get people to come to London over a longer period in the morning and to leave over a longer period in the evening, the better it will be far traffic.

Mr. Oram: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members representing constituencies east of London, no doubt including the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), are constantly receiving complaints from their local authorities about deficiencies in the transport services in the area? Today I have received a further batch from the Town Clerk of Bast Ham. In considering the question of staggered hours, will the Minister also look at these complaints about the effectiveness of the service in that area?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member has received any specific complaint, perhaps he will send it to me and I will send it to the British Transport Commission for the Commission to consider.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Japan

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Minister of Transport what representations have been made to the Japanese Government following that Government's decision to revive the system of subsidising the servicing of loans for shipbuilding, in view of the effect upon shipbuilding in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marples: The subsidy to which my hon. Friend refers is a measure of financial assistance to Japanese shipowners and does not directly affect the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry. The Japanese Government are aware, however, that we regret any measures designed to stimulate the expansion of Japanese shipping artificially when the world already has too much tonnage.

Mr. Howard: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he assure the House that he will use this and every other occasion to protest against any form of subsidy and discrimination in the shipping industry, and, in particular, to focus attention on the United States of America, which is the principal offender?

Mr. Marples: Certainly, Sir, but the Question is about Japan; and we are sorry that Japan, a very great maritime nation, finds it necessary to adopt such measures.

Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that all of us on this side of the House are very much concerned with the present plight of the shipbuilding industry in our own country. As a matter of fact, many of us still believe that his Ministry is not capable of dealing with this and many other activities for which it is responsible. Can we have the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will direct all his efforts to getting as much work as possible, not only for the shipbuilding industry in Great Britain but also in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Marples: We have already done that, and if the hon. Gentleman has any construc:ive suggestion which he thinks we should adopt, I should be grateful to hear from him.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House realises that pink zones may be important, but that the Red Duster is far more important, and that we cannot for ever tolerate in this House the practices adopted toy our alleged allies and ex-enemies and by our ex-allies and present allies, both Japanese and American, and pursued to defend their now uneconomic industry; and that anything that can be done to raise this matter, particularly with the American Government, will be welcomed in this House?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree with my hon. Friend, but everybody in this House keeps pointing out the difficulty and nobody points out the remedy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I myself have protested to the United States about the way it discriminates, and I have now put on record what I think about the subsidy imposed by Japan. At the same

time, what can one do to bring pressure to bear upon another sovereign country?

Mr. Rankin: Whilst it is all very well to regret these happenings, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, in view of the fact that world capacity to build ships is now far in excess of world demand, that it is time we were doing something, or trying to do something, to reach some form of international agreement that would regulate the building of ships? Will he, as I have asked him before, try to take the first step in seeking to get an international conference on this matter?

Mr. Marples: I took the step when in Washington of seeing the State Department of the United States as well as the Federal Maritime Board. I made my protest and the position of this country perfectly clear. The real difficulty is that this country is in a vulnerable position as regards shipping and we have very few cards to play. I wish we had more.

Seamen (Recovery of Damages)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that, whereas normally a workman can recover damages from his employer in respect of personal injury caused, to any extent, by the fault of the employer, which includes the fault of a fellow servant, this vicarious liability is limited in the case of an employer who is a shipowner, and that damages are here limited to an aggregate amount not exceeding £15 for each ton of the ship's tonnage; and if he will introduce legislation to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in order to give seamen on small vessels the same right to recover damages as other employees.

Mr. Hay: By the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act, 1958, which came into force on 1st August of that year, the limit on a shipowner's liability has been raised to some £74 per ton. There is also a provision whereby small ships are to be regarded for this purpose as though they were of 300 tons. The Act gave effect to an International Convention on the subject drawn up in 1957.

Dr. Thompson: While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is still


unfair to discriminate against one class of workers in regard to the amount of damages payable—that is to say, to link the amount of damages payable to the nature of their work? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland to ensure that the new provisions can be applied to Scotland, because a case which recently went before the Scottish courts, since the date mentioned by the Minister, indicated that the provisions do not apply to Scotland?

Mr. Hay: I am not sure about the latter part of the supplementary question, but at the moment we certainly have no evidence that any great injustice is being caused by this much higher limit than formerly prevailed. I will certainly look into the matter, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be worth his while to look in HANSARD at the debates which took place when the Private Member's Bill was passing through the House.

Shipbuilding Advisory Committee

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the future of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the future of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he will make a statement on the resignation of Sir Graham Cunningham as the Chairman of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee;
(2) whether he will make a statement on the special sub-committee he is arranging to set up to consider the future of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport if he has yet completed the formation of the sub-committee of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee to inquire into the future of the industry; and if he will now state its personnel.

Mr. Marples: Sir Graham Cunningham, who has for some time wished to retire from the chairmanship of the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, has recently tendered his resignation, which I have accepted with great regret. The

Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Transport will take his place as Chairman and the Committee will have the same terms of reference and membership as before. The representatives of both sides of the shipbuilding industry have agreed that a sub-committee shall be set up to consider the future of the industry. Detailed arrangements are now being worked out.

Mr. Albu: In view of the serious criticism of obscurantism on the part of the employers made by this distinguished industrialist, Sir Graham Cunningham, and by the director of the shipbuilding firm in a recent article in The Times, and the criticism of the industry's technical competence made by the Minister of Science at, I believe, a dinner at the Royal Institute of Naval Architects, is it not time that the Government intervened in the affairs of this industry in the same way as it has done in some other industries, and adopted policies similar to those adopted by the Minister of Aviation in the aviation industry, particularly in regard to concentration of the production resources of the industry and the provision of development contracts in order to improve the productive and scientific—[Interruption.]

Mr. Marples: In answer to that short supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Member that I am more anxious to get both sides of the industry together with constructive proposals for the future than to issue condemnations about the past.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House would agree that tribute should be paid to Sir Graham Cunningham for the very great work he has done in this Committee over a long period? If there are criticisms of the shipbuilding industry, they must be matched against its present competitive ability with the practices in Japan and in Continental countries. Will my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be imposed rationalisation it is not necessarily the right thing for the industry? Can he tell the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have forgotten how long ago it was that this House resolved to assist me with regard to the length of supplementary questions.

Mr. Williams: Finally, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the scope and aims of this Committee are to continue to be in the future what they were in the past?

Mr. Marples: The Advisory Committee has agreed to set up this subcommittee, and its terms of reference will be for the Committee to decide. We are to have an early meeting and are trying to find out when it will be convenient for all parties to attend, I hope that it will be at the earliest possible moment.
I propose to go to the meeting, with the Permanent Secretary, to see whether we can thrash out terms of reference which will be acceptable to both sides of the industry. Unless we can take both sides with us in this respect there will be very little chance of success.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the recent statement by the Minister of Science represents the Government's appraisal of the shipbuilding industry? If it does, when will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it? Is it true, as Sir Graham Cunningham alleges, that the Committee is of the opinion that at present the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the problems of the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will look at the letter again, he will see that that is precisely what Sir Graham Cunningham did not say. Sir Graham said that it was alleged by other parties, and that he did not agree. We have him on our side in that respect. If the hon. Member will look again at the letter he will see who is mistaken. A question about another Minister making a policy statement should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that Sir Graham Cunningham's letter pinpointed two dangers? The first is the danger that the shipbuilding industry now faces, and the second is that the Government have no policy to deal wih the danger. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he is depending on the interested parties to give him a policy, or if he has a policy, will he indicate to us now the policy which the Government

have to deal with the danger to which Sir Graham Cunningham referred?

Mr. Marples: Sir Graham Cunningham did not say that in his letter. The hon. Member is completely wrong. Either he has not read the letter or he has misinterpreted it. The point is that there will be a sub-committee to go into this. It must consist of the two sides of the industry and the Government if it is to have effective action.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McMaster.

Mr. Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Russell.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I think you called me to put a supplementary question just before the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised his point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is strictly right. In flexing my head I lost the sequence of time.

Mr. McMaster: As a representative in this House of the Minister of Science, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the Northern Ireland shipbuilding industry about the recent published comments of the Minister of Science? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the British industry receives at least the same aid as Continental, Japanese and American yards?

Mr. Marples: I had better consult my noble Friend the Minister of Science.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Planning Board

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will now announce the names of the members of the new Railway Planning Board; and if it is to be permanent; and
(2) what are the present considerations which prompted him to set up a planning board to advise him about the size, shape and pattern of railways and the future prospects of traffic.

Mr. Marples: The considerations prompting the setting up of this body were fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 10th March last. I hope to be able to announce the composition and terms of reference of the body very shortly.

Mr. Grimond: Was the British Transport Commission consulted before this proposal was made? If so, did the Commission recommend it? Ought there not to be people either in the Ministry or in the British Transport Commission doing this sort of planning without the need of a new board? If the new board is to have these very wide terms of reference, does the Minister think that it can give a once-for-all decision on these matters?

Mr. Marples: The terms of reference have not been announced and the hon. Member does not know what they are.

Mr. Grimond: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary stated them.

Mr. Marples: The actual terms of reference have not been announced. The hon. Member is, therefore, in error when he refers to them. The Chairman of the British Transport Commission was almost in daily consultation with me, and he agreed with the procedure which the Government are following.

Mr. Benn: Will this planning board be charged with the responsibility for studying the future of transport as a whole, or will it be confined to the railways? Does not the Minister agree that certain simple, clear-cut decisions, such as those concerning the freedom to develop sites for car parking and similar purposes, and the Victoria line tube, need not await yet another commission inquiring into the management side of the railways?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member thinks that matters connected with the railways are very simple, he ought to think again. It would be better to wait until the terms of reference are announced before answering supplementary questions about them.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that his Joint Parliamentary Secretary courteously gave the House certain information about the terms of reference

in a recent debate? Are we to understand that this information is wrong?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD, as I certainly shall after his question, I think he will find that the words "terms or reference" were never used by my hon. Friend. All he did was to give a little information to the House in the course of the debate. The terms of reference as such have not yet been announced. I think that we ought to wait until the names of the members of the board and the terms of reference are announced.

Mr. Manuel: Will the House have a full opportunity to debate any decisions reached by the Planning Board before they are automatically put into operation by British Railways?

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will study the Report of that debate, he will see that the decisions of the Planning Board will be advisory to the Government and that it will be up to the Government to decide what action to take.

Car Parks, London

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will state approximately how much space in the Greater London Area is taken up by railway lines and railway works of various kinds; and what attempts are being made to obtain suitable areas of this land for car parking.

Mr. Marples: I have no figures for the Greater London Area. My information is, however, that railway property within the County of London is conservatively estimated to occupy some 3,350 acres. The London Travel Committee is doing all it can to encourage the provision of car parks at stations in London. The number of car spaces at stations in the London area has increased from 6,000 to 8,300 since 1955, and plans have been made to increase the number to 9,500 in the near future.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he will look into the situation in the Greater London Area, where there is also a need for car parks at stations? Does he not agree that an enormous amount of space is occupied by the railways, not entirely by lines but


by yards—and other space with nothing on it—which might be used for car parks? Will he go into this question?

Mr. Marples: I quite agree that it is important that people should go from their homes to stations in the suburbs or in Greater London and then continue their journey by public transport. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a very important subject.

Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that this is exactly one of those points on which a decision could be reached immediately to give the British Transport Commission permission to develop car parks on railway sites and that it is not necessary to wait for six or eight months for a decision by the Planning Board? What is the reason for the delay in reaching a decision on a matter of that kind?

Mr. Marples: It is not a question of waiting for a decision from the board. Where the British Transport Commission can do this without legislation, it is free to do it now. If legislation is needed, the House knows that it takes some time to get it through. If the board which is to advise the Government decides that legislation is required in that respect, we shall put forward legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Service Pensions (Commutation)

Mr. Freeth: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement with regard to granting to those who commuted part or all of their Service pensions a sum equivalent to the increases which have taken place subsequent to retirement in the retired pay of officers and men.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said on 25th February, 1960, commutation is a voluntary action taken in the knowledge that it necessarily ends the Government's obligation in respect of that part of pension which is commuted.

Mr. Freeth: In answering a supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on 11th November, my right hon. Friend stated that he did not wish to be unsympathetic about this and that

he would look carefully into it. Am I to assume that he has decided that nothing further can be done even though, as he is probably aware, many of the people who have commuted their pensions have served many years overseas and have had to commute in order to find somewhere to live?

Mr. Watkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. I looked into the matter again, as I undertook to do, but I am afraid that I can see no way round this difficulty.

Chemical and Biological Warfare

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Defence, why information regarding new methods of chemical or germ warfare were supplied by Great Britain for purposes of mass production and stockpiling by the United States of America, which is not a signatory to the Geneva Convention on poison gases.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is a condition of any agreement for the exchange of information regarding the results of chemical warfare research with the United States of America that full-scale production shall take place only with the consent of the country supplying the information.

Mr. Watkinson: Information of this kind is exchanged with the United States authorities at the research stage under the normal arrangements, in order to assist the development of an effective defence. No restrictions are placed on the use which either country may make of the information for its own purposes.

Mr. Allaun: Was the statement by the Ministry spokesman on 10th March that details of nerve gases of unprecedented power had been handed to America made with the Minister's approval? Secondly, is he aware that the United States Defence Department has admitted that production is to start there next year? Are not these serious admissions in view of the widespread revulsion against the whole filthy business?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not aware of the position with regard to the first supplementary question. On the second question, the position is that there is an agreement for the interchange of information between the two countries, and


this particular process was dealt with under that interchange at a very early stage in the research and development programme.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that since this country has ratified the Geneva Convention about this type of warfare and the United States of America has not, if we supply information to the United States of America without any condition as to its being used for defensive purposes only and not used for stockpiling, that would be a breach by this country of the Convention which it has signed and ratified? If he has doubts about this, will be take good legal opinion about it?

Mr. Watkinson: I think the hon. Gentleman is perhaps not aware of what President Eisenhower said at his Press conference on 13th January, 1960, when he made it clear that he was not contemplating any change in the traditional United States' policy of not being the first to use chemical or biological weapons.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister was answering my Question, No. 44, at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Member's pardon; he is quite right.

Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Major General Stubbs, the United States Army chemical officer, that unless the public accept the fact that we must be prepared to use these weapons we shall not achieve a balanced weapon system? Does he deny that this nerve gas which was developed in this country is to go into full production in the United States next year? In view of our position in the N.A.T.O. alliance, what is he doing to oppose this policy of introducing these weapons into the balance of terror?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not aware of the statement made, nor am I responsible for statements or actions by the United States Administration.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. In view of that very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek

an opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

German Forces (Training)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the widespread feeling against permitting any part of the United Kingdom to be used for the training of German military or air forces, if he will give an assurance that no such arrangements will be made without prior authority of Parliament.

Mr. Watkinson: As the House is aware, a small number of German officers and other ranks are already under training in this country. In the event of any major change in the scope of the arrangements, I should in any case inform the House.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the Minister for that answer. He will appreciate that when the treaty arrangements were made under which Germany was admitted to N.A.T.O. it was never contemplated that German troops would be trained in this country. This is a matter on which the House ought to be consulted before any major arrangements are made.

Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that I will certainly keep the House informed when any major change is contemplated.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has the Minister ever had any conversations with the defence authorities in France to find out whether the French are prepared to have German bases on their soil? Will he take advantage of the visit of President de Gaulle to ask him whether German troops will be stationed there too?

Mr. Watkinson: I cannot undertake to do that, because I hope to leave for the N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers' meeting in 10 minutes' time.

Missiles

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the fact that the general defence of Great Britain against rockets is practically impossible, if he will now revise his policy of using the missile against a conventional attack.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave last week to the hon. Members for Nelson and


Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler).

Mr. Rankin: I take it that that means that the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to revise his policy. Will not he think over the matter again, because, as it is now admitted that there can be no defence of the civil population in the case of a missile attack being launched, is it not sheer madness to say that where a conventional attack is made we will meet it by using the missile?

Mr. Watkinson: It would be sheer madness if with our allies we did not do our utmost to try to stop a war starting. That is the whole purpose of this.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister agree that it is time the disastrous policy put forward in paragraph 12 of his predecessor's White Paper was revised? Until some declaration is made that that policy has in fact been revised, as it

—
1956
1950
1945
1919 reassessed on account of 1939–45 war service
1919
Pre-1919


Under 60
…
11,330
5,360
12,260
530
740
—


Over 60
…
320
1,250
6,640
4,120
6,080
15


Totals 
…
11,650
6,610
18,900
4,650
6,820
15


Note: No officer is as yet in receipt of retired pay under the 1960 Code which is effective from 1st April, 1960.

Royal Air Force Camps

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Minister of Defence what evidence he has of racial discrimination in the leave and recreational facilities available to men and women of the Royal Air Force at camps and establishments administered by the Royal Air Force and the other services, respectively; and what steps he has taken to remove such discrimination.

Mr. Watkinson: There is no racial discrimination in any of the Services. However, inquiries about the position in every leave centre throughout the world are not yet completed. I will certainly make a further statement as soon as possible.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Minister aware that only last week the Secretary of State

probably has been, it stands as official Government policy, and that is most undesirable.

Mr. Watkinson: I should have thought that the policy has worked rather well, It has kept the peace.

Retired Officers (Pay)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Defence how many retired officers of the three Armed Services, including the Indian armed services, are in receipt of retired pay under each of the six retired pay codes; how many of those officers retired under the 1919 code had their retired pay reassessed because of war service; and how many of these officers are over and under the age of 60 years, respectively.

Mr. Watkinson: As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL RBPORT.

Following are the figures:

for War said that for another five years non-European airmen serving in Aden would be denied the use of the leave centre in Kenya? What is he doing to prevent this monstrous discrimination?

Mr. Watkinson: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I am glad to say that the restrictions at the Nyali leave centre have now been removed and that in future there will be no bar on coloured Service men using it.

SIR ROY WELENSKY (STATEMENT)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has given to the protest he has received from the Government of


Belgium regarding the official statement of Sir Roy Welensky with regard to federation of the Katanga area of the Belgian Congo with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to the communication he has received from the Belgian Government regarding Sir Roy Welensky's official statement that he has received approaches from the Katanga Province of the Belgian Congo for union with the Central African Government.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The Belgian Ambassador asked me on 4th March about Sir Roy Welensky's remarks to a Press correspondent about letters he had received suggesting that the Katanga Province of the Belgian Congo might be associated with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I told the Ambassador that the political association of any other territory with the Federation would require the approval of Her Majesty's Government and legislation in the United Kingdom. I also said that Her Majesty's Government had not considered, nor been asked to consider, the possibility of any such association.

Mr. Stonehouse: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, but would he not agree that it is of very great importance that this country should have good relations with the new Congo State which comes into existence on 1st July next? Is it not deplorable that Sir Roy Welensky should make statements of this character which appear to the people concerned as empire-building?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it should be noted that in the statement attributed to Sir Roy Welensky he said that any move for the association of this Province would have to come from the people of the Province itself. However, at the recent Round Table Conference in Brussels at which there were delegates from Katanga Province, it was agreed that the Congo should remain a unitary State within its present frontier. That is a factor which Her Majesty's Government will have to take into account.

Mr. Brockway: The right hon. and learned Gentleman omitted to mention

any communication having been made to Sir Roy Welensky. Have the Government in fact indicated to him his grave indiscretion in making this statement? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has investigated this matter at all, is it not the case that the proposal for union came from mining interests in Katanga who feared that their social and economic privileges would be destroyed under an independent African Government?

Mr. Lloyd: I really do not think that the Prime Minister of the Federation is under any obligation to communicate with Her Majesty's Government about any private letters he may receive. However, I have stated our position today and I do not doubt that it will be noted.

GERMANY (CAPTURED DOCUMENTS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that none of the German documents at present in the joint possession of the Allied Powers will be destroyed, and no further such documents be returned to the custody of the Federal German Government, without the prior consent of this House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no intention of destroying any of the captured German documents in whose control Her Majesty's Government have a share. As to the return of these documents to the German Government, this will continue as hitherto under arrangements which ensure that the material remains available for suitable use. In this connection I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) on 7th March.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that if these documents are returned to the West German Government he cannot then give this House a guarantee that they will not be destroyed? Does not he agree that the documents are of international importance? Will he, therefore, take steps at the United Nations to suggest that all countries possessing such documents should put them under the control of the


United Nations, where they can be made easily accessible to all who are interested in them?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall certainly consider that possibility, but there is a factor in this case to which the hon. Lady has perhaps not given sufficient regard: microfilms are taken of all these documents before they are returned.

Mrs. Castle: That is not the point.

UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING)

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Security Council meeting today.
As the House is aware, a meeting of the Security Council is at present taking place to decide what action to take on a request from a number of African and Asian countries that it consider the situation arising from the recent tragic events in the Union of South Africa.
The first business of the Council is the agenda for the meeting. The United Kingdom representative has instructions not to oppose the discussion of the item requested by the African and Asian countries. We do, however, adhere to our view that, in accordance with Article 2 (7) of the Charter, nothing in the Charter authorises the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.
It is the primary responsibility of the Security Council to promote the maintenance of international peace and security. We have a very delicate situation. I am sure that the House will join with me in hoping that the Security Council discussion will contribute to an alleviation of this situation.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side of the House believe that the whole nation will welcome the decision of the Government not to oppose the discussion of this problem? We appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view about domestic jurisdiction, but in his discussions with our delegate at the United Nations will he take into account

the fact that, quite apart from last week's events, we now seem to be moving—as he says—into an even more delicate situation during the next few weeks?
In view of the possible threat to the stability and peace of the whole of the Continent of Africa as a result of the events which are happening there now, may we take it that if the proposition were put on those grounds our delegate would not automatically oppose a discussion and a resolution reaching a conclusion on it?
Finally, is the Foreign Secretary aware that a United Kingdom citizen was arrested this morning—a missionary at the Anglican mission, who is well known in this country as a former almoner at Hammersmith Hospital? Can he or the High Commissioner get in touch with the South African Government in respect of this event?

Mr. Lloyd: The last matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a matter for me Departmentally, but I will see that the point he has made is put to my noble Friend.
As for the earlier part of his supplementary question, as I have already said, we are not opposing and will not oppose a discussion of this matter. Our future course of conduct will depend upon the nature of the discussion and the nature of the resolution, if any.
Only a few minutes ago I was in touch with our permanent representative, and I think that what will happen today is that the representatives of Tunisia and Ceylon in the Security Council will speak at some length, and then other representatives of Afro-Asian countries will wish to speak. We must see how the discussion develops.

Mr. Callaghan: Have the Government reached any conclusion about taking the initiative themselves in relation to the danger to the stability on the Continent, in view of the developments that have been reported today from Africa, which seem to be mounting in danger and severity, to the anxiety of all of us, and in which the whole future of everyone, especially in South Africa and perhaps throughout the whole of Central Africa, may be involved? Is not there a case for asking that some international body should try to take command of the situation before it deteriorates into anarchy?

Mr. Lloyd: We are all very much aware that this is a very serious and delicate situation. There is a very great responsibility on the members of the Security Council and all others who are concerned to see that they do not make matters worse. There is certainly a responsibility upon us, and we will not burke our responsibility. But there are some very important issues at stake. The other day I indicated our deep regret, which I know is shared by the whole House, at what happened. I have stated our basic approach to racial problems.
On the other hand, there is this very important matter of intervention in the domestic affairs of States, and the House will have been very interested to see what both the Prime Minister of India and the Prime Minister of Australia said on that matter. Then there is the whole question of Commonwealth relationship, and the tradition of noninterference by Governments in the affairs of other free and independent members of the Commonwealth—a concept which flows from the Statute of Westminster. There are, therefore, very wide issues at stake, and we shall approach them with a due sense of responsibility.

Mr. Gaitskell: I recognise the complexity of the problem, especially the question of jurisdiction over internal affairs, but does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless agree that what is happening in South Africa cannot but be of the utmost concern to the rest of the Commonwealth, because it has a bearing upon racial relations in a multi-racial society? In those circumstances, have Her Majesty's Government been in touch with the South African Government directly on this matter, quite apart from whatever may be said in the Security Council?

Mr. Lloyd: We most certainly have been in touch with the South African Government.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that it is fully appreciated that the right forum for these discussions is, first, the Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference? Will he do nothing to endanger the future of that conference? Secondly, will he stress the fact that while, in certain circumstances, it may be right and,

indeed, necessary to condemn measures, statements condemning individuals and peoples are likely to lead to the exacerbation of an already delicate situation?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that it is a delicate situation. In many ways it is a very serious situation. There have been these tragic incidents, and there is a difficult situation at this time, as hon. Members know. Our task is to try to secure a return to internal quiet in the Union of South Africa and to see that the situation is not exacerbated by our actions, in the hope that the lessons will be learnt.

Mr. Grimond: As the Foreign Secretary has said, I am sure that the House will join with him in hoping that the discussions in the Security Council will alleviate the situation. But is it not the case that the mere fact that he said that confirms that these events go far outside the boundaries of South Africa, and that some discussion of this question by world opinion may be useful? In the course of talking to the South African Government will the Foreign Secretary make representations against these latest repressive measures, which will only have the most serious repercussions all over Africa?

Mr. Lloyd: The situation in South Africa is, quite obviously, a delicate and serious one, and it would be better for me not to comment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that many people will learn with intense disquiet of this decision that there can be a debate in the United Nations about the internal affairs of an independent State which does not amount to intervention? Is he aware that this decision bodes very ill for the future of the United Nations as a body instituted to uphold the rule of law and not emotion?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will not expect me to agree with him that the decision we have taken is wrong. I think that, in the circumstances, we have taken the correct action in instructing our delegate not to oppose this matter. But my hon. Friend is quite right in pointing out the danger of this position, and I think that we have to be careful that we do not destroy the efficacy of that body by acting in a manner which would be ultra vires the Charter. I think that we have to be very careful.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of what the Foreign Secretary has just said, would not he agree with the statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, two or three days ago, that it had never been considered at the United Nations that Article 2 (7) excluded discussion, that it merely excluded intervention? In view of the existence of Articles 55 and 56, which relate to the obligation to respect human rights, how can the Foreign Secretary take the view that it is not within the cognisance of the United Nations at least to discuss any matter affecting the rights of human beings?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not taken that point of view. I have stated that we were not going to vote against the discussion. I did refer to Article 2 (7) and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the article begins:
Notwithstanding anything in Charter …
This article prevails whatever may be in Articles 55 and 56. I agree with him about the use in the article of the word "intervention". That is precisely the matter to which I drew attention earlier.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has my right hon. Friend anything to tell the House about the progress of the judicial inquiry now going on in South Africa, because if this matter is to be discussed at the United Nations, which I personally would regret for the reasons which have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), would not it be desirable that facts as well as prejudices should be before those called on to pronounce on these events?

Mr. Lloyd: I have no information to give to my hon. Friend about (his inquiry.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind in this matter the International Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Commission which was set up under the auspices of the United Nations? Will he bear in mind that this Convention was arrived at only because it was generally felt that any infringements of a serious nature of human rights went beyond the confines of the country where they occurred and involved an international responsibility

which we all shared? In view of that, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that his former position with regard to this matter is no longer tenable in the light of the worldwide anxiety that these events have provoked?

Mr. Lloyd: I could not agree on that. Nor would I be prepared to answer a question on the Human Rights Convention without notice. It is a matter of considerable legal perplexity and I should need to know the precise position of South Africa with regard to that matter and other nations, also.

Mr. Fisher: As against the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), would my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that although many of us, including myself, defended the attitude of the Government in the December debate, it would, I think, be much less easy now to accept what to the public outside might look like a somewhat technical and procedural vote on this occasion? Would he agree that, as the leaders of a multi-racial Commonwealth, we cannot this time pass a vote which, to opinion outside, might be misconstrued as a vote in favour of the apartheid policy?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has referred to what happened last December. On that occasion, we did not oppose discussion of the matter. So far as the future is concerned, and future decisions, I think that we have to do what we believe to be right.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The Foreign Secretary has referred to Article 2 (7) of the Charter. In the instructions to our delegate at the Security Council about a possible resolution, will he call his attention to the fact that Article 1 (3) of the Charter says that one fundamental purpose of the United Nations is
To achieve international co-operation … in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, …"?

Mr. Lloyd: That is a fine statement and a fine ideal, but again we have to remember the contractual basis on which members join the United Nations, that nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to


intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether there are not occasions when issues may arise inside a country which will so disturb the people in other countries that there is a danger to peace? Is he aware that the situation in South Africa is moving millions of people in the whole continent of Africa—[HON. MEMBERS: "And elsewhere."] Yes, and elsewhere, but immediately in the Continent of Africa—and that unless the United Nations finds some solution of this difficulty there is grave danger of the struggle which is evolving in South Africa spreading to other African territories?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that all the issues involved will be very much in the minds of members of the Security Council. As I have said, I hope that this discussion will alleviate the situation. I think that we must work for that result.

rose—

Ms. Speaker: Order. I must again remind hon. Members that there is no Question before the House.

Orders of the Day — PAYMENT OF WAGES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(No SHILLINGS, NO PENCE,WAGE PAYMENTS.)

Where an employed person requests payment of his wages in multiples of ten shillings, it shall be lawful for the employer to retain as a trustee for the employed person the shillings and pence by which his wage for the period for which they are payable together with any money previously so retained exceed the immediately lesser multiple of ten shillings.—[Mr. Gresham Cooke.]

Brought up, and read the First time

3.47 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

This Clause—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will assist the progress of business by receding a little more silently.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I believe this to be an excellent Bill which would be improved by the addition of this Clause to make it possible for the payment of wages to be made in multiples of 10s. The Clause is in the same words as a Clause in the Wages Bill which was drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).
My experience in this matter goes back to my days in the steel industry, when I was the secretary of the United Steel Companies at Sheffield. The operation of paying wages in a large works is a voluminous one, lasting over several days. The calculation of wages, the punch-card system, and so on, all took place on Monday and Tuesday. Then, on Wednesday, there was the collection of moneys from the bank, checking at the bank, bringing it to the works, allocating the cash into the sections and putting it up into wage packets. That took a further two days, and, in my experience, the operation generally finished about Wednesday night or Thursday morning.
A day of this time was involved in sorting the shillings and pence to go into the wage packets. Therefore, if payment were to be made only in notes, the


payment of wages, in a large works, could, generally speaking, be made a day earlier. Or, alternatively, it could be run over the same period with less staff. In either event, there would be some benefit to industry, either in the time of payment or the efficiency of the work.
Again, were this the case, another possibility would come into the foreground. That is that men might be content to take a basic sum on Monday, paid in notes, which could probably be quite easily done, and the calculation of shift bonuses, and so on, could be worked out during the week and an adjusting sum paid on the following Monday and added to the basic sum which had been previously paid in notes.
When this idea was put forward some years ago by United Steel to the union representatives at a works in Cumberland it was not looked on with favour by the union representatives, because the payment of wages there was made on Fridays and it was thought that the men would not have a shilling in their pockets with which to pay the union dues. If the payment of wages were brought forward to Wednesdays or Thursdays, surely the objections and difficulties concerning the payment of union dues on Fridays could be overcome.
This Clause would enable wages to be paid in a simpler form, in multiples of £1 and 10s. notes, and any surplus of under 10s. would be carried forward to the following week until the surplus amounted to 10s., when it would, of course, be paid in a 10s. note. It is a sensible Clause, if I may say so, in line with the spirit of the Bill and I think that it would improve the Bill. Therefore, I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to second the Motion.
This system of payment of wages by no shillings and no pence has been in operation in a fair number of cases. It has proved very beneficial as a time-saving device in the packaging of wages. It has been used particularly in the public services and some hospitals have adopted it.
When I had the privilege of bringing a Private Member's Bill on this subject before the House. I gave examples of the

use of this system and its saving of time. I do not propose to go over those examples again today. But the very fact that this system has been discussed in connection with the reform of the Truck Acts has, I fear, given the impression that it is illegal under those Acts.
The argument that it is illegal arises from a word used in the 1831 Truck Act. It says that wages must be paid in the current coin of the realm, but the word "entire" is added. The wording of that Section is:
The entire … wages, … shall be paid … in the current coin of this realm.
Therefore, if any deduction is made to bring payment to the nearest 10s. or £1 it is thought that it may not be the payment of the entire wages.
Some firms and undertakings have been advised that this is a perfectly legal method of the payment of wages despite the Truck Acts. Others advise that it is an illegal method. If my right hon. Friend could say today that he has been advised that this is a perfectly legal method—this system of paying wages to the nearest 10s. or £1—and that it is unnecessary to put this Clause into the Bill, I would be quite satisfied. I can assure the House that it is being operated in some undertakings and, indeed, in the payment of manual workers. Those undertakings have been advised that it is a perfectly legal method of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. He said that there were some public undertakings already operating this scheme and he specifically mentioned hospitals. I was surprised to hear this. Can he give more details about it?

Mr. Page: I gave the details on a previous occasion and I do not want now to detain the House unnecessarily. The scheme was gone into very carefully by one hospital management group and one teaching hospital—the Shenley Hospital Management Group and St. Thomas's Hospital, across the river. They may well have paid manual workers in this way—doormen, commissionaires, messengers, and so on—and if this system is illegal under the Truck Acts then they were acting illegally. Many of them have been advised that it is perfectly legal, and I should like my right hon.


Friend to say today that it is legal and that we do not need this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not want to detain the House on this matter for long. Whether the principle or the method is legal or illegal, it is true that it obtains. It obtained in at least one factory where I had some experience. I do not, however, think that we ought to underwrite the system in the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), in moving the Clause, put his ringer largely on the difficulty so far as the workpeople are concerned when he said that they had no money to pay trade union contributions on Friday night. It does not only affect trade union contributions.
We, rightly or wrongly, implemented the scheme, and it is true that it enabled an enormous saving in time for the employers in the making-up of wages. Where we tended to fall down—this would apply equally whether wages were paid on Thursdays or Fridays—was on account of the enormous strain which it placed on the transport service from that factory. A large proportion of the workpeople going home on the night of the payment of wages tendered to the bus conductor a 10s. note or a £1 note. Difficulties arise in other respects as well.
We have to be concerned solely in this instance with its practical application. In many factories and places where people work there are all sorts of schemes which are not deductible from wages. There are all sorts of activities in which employees engage which have to be attended to, particularly when pay day is on a Friday, and with the operation of the five-day working week the difficulties are increased. The only valid objection which I can see to this method of paying below and above the line in 10s. multiples is the inconvenience to which the workpeople are put. We found, in practice, that while it is very attractive from the point of view of making up the wages it produced such a volume of discontent among the workpeople that its operation by the employers was not worth while from a long-term point of view.

4.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): It may be of assistance to my hon. Friends the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and to the House if I give our opinion as to the legality of this system. We have looked into this matter and I am advised that there is nothing at all to prevent an employer agreeing with his employee that the system as set out in the new Clause should be adopted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby mentioned some difficulty which has been found concerning the legality of this when one looks at Section 3 of the 1831 Act. That Section says that an employed person, a person within the ambit of that Act, must receive his entire wages in cash and that any part of those wages paid to him in any other manner is illegal and void.
The Truck Acts have been concerned with the proper payment of wages and they have not been concerned with the timing of wages. There would be no difficulty in an employee saying to his employer, "I do not want my wages this week. I am going on holiday next week and I should like to have a fortnight's wages paid to me next Friday." If the emloyer agreed, and that were done, it would not mean that by withholding the payment of wages to the employee on that particular pay-day the employer was in breach of the Truck Acts. There is no difficulty as I see it, and as I am advised, in an employer and his employee entering into the arrangement which is set out in this Clause.
Therefore, I suggest to my hon. Friends that their apprehension as to the effect of adopting this system need not be great and that if employers and employees wish to adopt this system—as to the advisability of which I do not wish to say anything—there is nothing in the Truck Acts to prevent them doing so.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the advice that he has now given the House is the personal advice of himself and his right hon. Friend, or whether it is the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown? On more than one occasion we have been told that it is not our task here to interpret the law and that there are places


set aside for the interpretation of Parliament's will. Therefore, I should like to know whether this is the view of the Law Officers, or of himself and his right hon. Friend.
The only other thing I want to say in resisting this new Clause is that I think it a great mistake even to clear up this small problem arising from the Truck Acts in this way. When we embarked on the Bill it was our intention merely to deal with one particular matter, the payment of wages other than in the coin of the realm. We all tried to keep the purpose as narrow as that and we succeeded. I should regret very much if hon. Members tried to take the opportunity of the Bill going through the House to bring in this Clause for another purpose entirely.
If the Truck Acts are not clear, it would be best to leave this matter to the Committee which has been set up. There is a Committee under Mr. Karmel which is now considering the Truck Acts in relation to modern conditions. We know of the ridiculous situation arising as a result of the Truck Acts. I need not go over that again. They have been spoken about in the House on many occasions and they certainly require to be brought into line with modern practice. I should have thought this Clause was the kind of thing—if there is any doubt about whether this system is legal or not—which could be cleared up by that Committee.
I take it that when he has received the report of the Karmel Committee the Minister will probably introduce legislation in this House to bring the provisions up-to-date. That is the time when these odd little items should be dealt with. We should now concentrate on the principle of the Bill, which is merely to pay wages to manual workers—people covered by the Truck Acts—in other than the coin of the realm. I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) will not pursue this matter further now.
It is very easy to make a case that this would facilitate the payment of wages by paying in notes, but the convenience of people who earn wages must be considered. What happens if a man earns £9 19s. 10d.? Does he want to leave 9s. 10d. with his employer? If this Clause said that the employer would be

empowered to pay up to an even 10s., that might have been a different argument and a different case. Presumably, under the Truck Acts he would not be able to draw back amounts overpaid, but this matter wants far more consideration than can be given it at this time by a mere new Clause in a Bill. Consideration ought to be given to it properly by the Karmel Committee.
I hope that after what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and after he has told us whether this is the advice of the Law Officers or not, the hon. Member for Twickenham will withdraw the new Clause.

Mr. Jack Jones: It would be a little awkward if a man whose wage was £9 19s. 10d. a week had 4d. underpaid one week and he received the 10s. 6d. next week and was thereby overpaid.

Mr. P. Thomas: I speak again by permission of the House to reply to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I certainly would not presume to give my own opinion to the House on a matter of law as important as this. What I told the House is the advice that we have received in the Department. The right hon. Member knows that one is well advised in matters such as this. This is the advice we have received and that is what I conveyed to the House.

Mr. Robens: The advice of the Department need not necessarily be the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. The question I put to the hon. Gentleman is whether this is the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Thomas: I believe it is not customary to say whether or not one has received certain advice from the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Robens: One of them could be fetched.

Mr. Thomas: What I told the House was Chat it is the advice received from the Department. I agree with what the right hon. Member said that it is not, of course, conclusive and ultimately the matter inevitably must be one for the courts. I agree with the right hon. Member that a matter like this is probably inappropriate for this Bill, but I did not deal with that aspect. It is a matter,


I quite agree, which could very appropriately be considered by the Karmel Committee, and I hope it will be, but I have given the House the advice which we in the Department have received.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In view of what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said—that in his opinion, or rather the opinion of his Department, it is legal to pay wages in multiples of 10s., of course with the agreement of the employed person as set out in the Clause —I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES OTHERWISE THAN IN CASH.)

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, at the end to insert:
either by notice in writing given to the employed person or".
It may be of convenience to the House if we discuss this Amendment with the following Amendment, in page 2, line 26, at end insert:
(6) Any such request—

(a) shall cease to have effect if, before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice containing the request is given, the employer gives to the employed person notice in writing that he refuses the request, and
(b) in any other case, shall cease to have effect at the end of that period unless before the end thereof the employer has signified his agreement to the request as mentioned in the last preceding subsection.

Mr. Speaker: That is agreed.

Mr. Heath: In Committee, a number of very valuable suggestions were made with a view to improving the working machinery of the Bill. Some of those suggestions we were able to embody in the Bill. I undertook to consider the others and I think that, as a result of the Amendments which are now on the Notice Paper, we have been able to meet almost all of them, I hope to the satisfaction of the House, with the exception of one proposed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and two on small points suggested by my hon. Friends.
When we drafted the Bill our endeavour was to make it as simple in its application as possible. Under Clause 1,

a request has to me made in writing. We thought that such a request could be met by the employer making a payment or not making a payment in the way requested. It was pointed out in Committee that that means that there is an element of uncertainty for the workman, because he may not know whether the employer is refusing or whether the slip has gone astray. We have, therefore, put down these two Amendments, which, we hope, will meet the situation without necessarily complicating it and without demanding a large amount of paper work to deal with it.
It will be seen it the end of subsection (5) that the employer may signify agreement to the request either by notice in writing, which he sends back to the employed person, or by paying the wages in the way requested. By the second Amendment, the request shall cease to have effect at the end of 14 days. If the employer writes back refusing the request within that period, it ceases to have effect earlier than 14 days, but if he does not write back, then it shall cease to have effect at the end of 14 days.
But this does not mean that it must be implemented within 14 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out in Committee that with modern systems of computer payment, it might take longer than 14 days to implement the request. Under this arrangement the employer can write back within 14 days saying that he intends to implement it, and that meets the case. I hope that the House feels that we have introduced an element of certainty and made it quite clear to the person who makes his application what the situation is within 14 days.

Mr. Robens: Having looked at the Notice Paper, I was very appreciative of the way in which the Minister had undoubtedly gone into all the suggestions made in Committee and had found the right words, which perhaps we had been unable to find in Committee, to meet the constructive suggestions that were made. I am obliged to him, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for having done so much to meet our suggestions.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I welcome these Amendments, which meet the point which was made in Committee


and which was made sufficiently forcibly for it to be unnecessary for us to go into the matter again.

Mr. Graham Page: In the first Amendment the words used are
either by notice in writing given to the employed person or".
If the employed person had asked for the notice to be given to his agent, for example, to the trade union which had negotiated the arrangement, would that be covered? I am not sure about that. Possibly a later Clause may provide for the situation where the employed person had asked for notice to be given in that form to his agent. It might mean a saving of a considerable amount of administrative work if the acceptance could be given to one person on behalf of a number.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that under the second Amendment the employer will have quite a short time in which to consider a request and to give his answer. He will have 14 days. In a large firm it may need some consideration by the employer whether he will agree to the request and whether he can make the necessary organisation. I think that it is right that he should reply within 14 days, but it is also worth calling attention to the fact that he has to give immediate attention to the employee's request and to deal with it by means of an answer, even if it takes some weeks to implement the request.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I was not a member of the Committee and I am not as familiar with the details of the discussions as are some of my hon. Friends.
I fully understand that in large establishments where a large number of workpeople are concerned it is desirable that any such change in the traditional method of paying wages should be made in consultation with the trade unions, for the purpose, which we all agree, of preserving good industrial relations. Nevertheless, I have always understood, in my working association with trade unions over many years, that in a legal sense—I must not fall into the pit into which the Parliamentary Secretary fell, of trying to give the House legal advice—matters of this sort can be transacted only on the basis of an individual contract of service. If

an agreement were made in a big engineering factory to pay the wages of thousands of people by a certain method, subject to trade union agreement, I should have no objection, but if an employee were difficult about it, legal difficulties might arise if there were not an individual contract with him.
I raise this point for the special, and, I hope, valid, reason that we are always being criticised in our public work for the prevalence of unofficial strikes. None of us likes unofficial strikes, on whichever side of the fence we are in a party sense, but if we have a backlog of ill feeling over these transactions in changing the methods of paying wages, it might give rise to industrial unrest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of other hon. Members, I am bound to interrupt the hon. Member, because I am finding a little difficulty in bringing what he is saying within the realm of the Amendment, which affects the form of the notice to be given. I think that he is a little wide of that subject.

Mr. Price: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you pulled me back on to the rails. I understand that this is a very narrow point. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) raised the matter incidentally and I was merely following the theme which he had put to the House about the form in which the notice was given.
It would help to clarify the matter, without making heavy weather of it, if the Minister, in his reply, made it clear that, while we understand that this will largely be dealt with on a collective basis, nevertheless there ought to be safeguards to ensure that the individual contract of service remains the individual right of the employee.

Mr. Heath: I can assure the hon. Member that that is so. The whole basis of the Bill is that that request is made by the individual himself. We made provision in Clause 5, in Committee, for him to do it through an agent, and we emphasised that that could be a trade union official, but it remains an individual right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that the request must be dealt with expeditiously by the employer. We


thought it right that the matter ought not to be left in an indecisive phase for very long. My hon. Friend mentioned the notice being given to the agent. Throughout the Bill all notices from the employer are sent to the employee personally, in particular the statement of wages, and this refusal or acceptance would also go direct to the employee, who would be able at once to pass it to his agent so that his agent knew the position.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We are grateful that this provision for a written notice has been incorporated into the Bill, because it makes for certainty. In Committee, the question was raised whether the employee, if the request were being accepted, could state the method by which payment was to be made. I have not sought to put down an Amendment about it, because it might make the procedure too cumbersome, but it is a point of some importance and I wonder whether it has been considered.
It is of great importance that under the second Amendment the original request comes to an end if there is no answer and that there is certainty that a request will not hang about unanswered for a long period. We ought to put on record our appreciation also of this provision.

Mr. Charles Mapp: The first Amendment provides that the employer shall indicate his agreement with the request by giving notice in writing or by paying the wages in the specified way. It was on that point that some of us, including myself, objected on Second Reading.
I have listened very carefully to what has been said from the Treasury Bench, but I still feel that the Amendment to line 26 is somewhat of a contradiction, having regard to the more emphatic statement in the first Amendment. I have no legal knowledge, but I think that I am gifted with the average commonsense of the average worker, who will be looking at these words when he applies them, and I should like the Minister to give us an assurance, so that there will be no uncertainty in the worker's mind that the employer must indicate in writing to the worker that he

has either accepted his request or has refused it.
Though the employer has the intention to meeting the request, and is proceeding to implement it, three or four weeks may elapse before the change is made in the method of payment. What I seek to avoid in these circumstances is any uncertainty in the mind of the worker whether the request has been agreed to or not.

Mr. Heath: If I may, by leave of the House, I should like to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) as to the form which the employer would send back. The employee who is making the request specifies the way in which he wants the matter dealt with. I think it is all right. The employer will respond to that request.
May I reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp)? The situation is that a request is made by the man to the employer, who meets the request by paying the wages in the way requested within a fortnight, in which case the employee will get a pay statement either before or at the time at which the wages are paid in the new way, which will show him how they are being paid. Alternatively, the employer can reply to the employee saying that he accepts the request and will implement it at such-and-such a time, if he requires longer than a fortnight. Alternatively, the employer can reply within the fortnight saying that he refuses the request, or, again at the end of the fortnight, if the employee had received no notice, he would know that his request had lapsed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 26, at end insert:
(6) Any such request—

(a) shall cease to have effect if, before the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice containing the request is given, the employer gives to the employed person notice in writing that he refuses the request, and
(b) in any other case, shall cease to have effect at the end of that period unless before the end thereof the employer has signified his agreement to the request as mentioned in the last preceding subsection.—[Mr. Heath.]

Clause 3.—(CANCELLATION OF REQUEST OR OF EMPLOYER'S AGREEMENT.)

Mr. Heath: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29. at the end to insert:
(7) The Minister may by order vary the provisions of the Schedule (Pay statements) to this Act to such extent and in such manner as he may determine; and any such order—

(a) may make different provision for different classes of cases, and
(b) may contain such transitional, supplementary and incidental provisions as may appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.


(8) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and shall include power to vary or revoke any such order by a subsequent order made thereunder; and any statutory instrument containing an order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Those hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we had very great difficulty about the Schedule, which deals with the form of the pay statement which a person who makes a request under Clause 1 receives when he is paid in the new way. Although we had very wide consultations with all those concerned during the drafting of the Bill, once the Bill had been published a number of employers, including, in particular, some of the major nationalised industries, found that the Schedule attached to the Bill would not allow them to continue the forms of pay statement which they were using and which were satisfactory to all those concerned.
I therefore thought it best to suggest to the Committee that we should not try to amend the Schedule, which was very complicated, but that we should, at that stage, withdraw it and substitute another one, which hon. Members will find on the Notice Paper and which we will be discussing later.
As we had so many difficulties with the Schedule—there are still Amendments to it on the Notice Paper—and as, with the development of modern machinery, the forms of pay statements are changing, apparently quite rapidly, I thought that it might be a more convenient way of dealing with future developments if we were to take power in the Bill to alter the provisions of the Schedule by Statutory Instrument.
This Amendment gives power to the Minister to do that by the negative Resolution procedure, so that if at some future time we found it necessary, for the convenience of all those engaged in industry who want to be paid in this way, to change the Schedule, it would not be necessary to come to the House with another Act of Parliament. We should be able to make the change by Statutory Instrument, which would provide an opportunity in the House for any hon. Member who wished to do so to pray against it. This Amendment puts into the Bill the power to alter the Schedule in that way by the negative Resolution procedure.

Mr. R. E. Prentice: The real background to this Amendment seems to be the pace at which automation and mechanised accounting enter in this matter. I suppose that this is an illustration of it, in a way, since the Schedule originally drafted for the Bill has been found to be out of date before the Bill has received a Third Reading. In these circumstances, it seems reasonable that there should be an Amendment of this kind by which alterations in future should be made by regulations.
On this side of the House, we considered this point very carefully, and it seemed to us that we had to combine a proper safeguard of the employees' right to have a clear picture on this matter, so as to know what deductions were being made from his weekly wages, and why, with the need to keep pace with these mechanical changes. It also seemed that another factor which led the Minister to alter the original Schedule was that some pay systems already operating with the full agreement of the trade unions might have been illegal if the Bill had gone through as originally drafted.
This is something else which might change in the future, and it makes the Minister's case stronger on this point. It would be rather cumbersome if, every time a change was necessary, the Minister had to come to the House with Amendments to the Bill itself, and as we have the safeguard here that the regulations must be laid before Parliament and we should have the right to pray against them, we see no reason for disagreeing with this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(PAYMENT OF WAGES OTHERWISE THAN IN CASH IN CASES OF ABSENCE.)

Mr. Heath: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end to insert:
and no notice excluding him from the operation of this section is in force at that time".
It might be convenient if this Amendment, and the following Amendment, to page 4, line 31, to insert a new subsection (4), were considered together, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Heath: I beg to move the two Amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Strictly, the right hon. Gentleman should move the first Amendment and discuss the other one with it.

Mr. Heath: During Second Reading, the question was raised about the operation of Clause 4, which was intended to deal with emergencies—the employee who was taken ill, or, for some other reason, was not able to be at his usual place of payment. This gave the employer the right to pay him by these two methods—money order, or postal order. During the debate in Committee, apprehensions were expressed by some Members about this happening to workmen, who, for personal reasons, did not want their wages sent in this way to their homes. I think that hon. Members appreciated the importance of these personal reasons and I undertook to see whether we could find a way of modifying the Clause.
4.30 p.m.
It was also agreed by hon. Members that only a comparatively small number of people would not want this emergency procedure to be used. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that perhaps it could be so arranged that it could be used by the employer, except in those circumstances where the workman had asked him not to use it. We thought that arrangement preferable, rather than to put it positively that a workman who wanted this to be used should apply to his employer, because it might happen only infrequently in a man's working lifetime and mean a great deal of clerical work to cover it. We should, I think, use the procedure whereby the employer would be given the right to pay in this

way in the two cases of sickness or failure to appear at the usual place of payment, unless the employee had asked him not to do so.
The Amendment I have moved adds to the Clause the provision that he may do it, provided that
no notice excluding him from the operation of this section is in force at that time.
The second Amendment which we are discussing means that it should remain in force unless the employee cancels it, again by writing to his employer.
I hope that this will meet the point raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite and will remove those apprehensions which, I think, many hon. Members had in Committee about the use of this Clause.

Mr. Prentice: We are very glad that the Amendment has been moved, because we attach very great importance to the point involved. We were prepared to argue strenuously again on this point and, if necessary, to vote on it if the Government had not substantially met the point which we made in Committee.
As the Clause was drafted originally, it was different from the rest of the Bill. The rest of the Bill gave the employed person the option; he had the right to choose a different way of receiving his wages if he preferred it in that way. But under Clause 4 as originally drafted, in cases where the employee was away sick or was absent from his normal pay station because of his work, the employer could send the wages by money or postal order without prior consent.
It seemed to my hon. Friends and myself that that might in some cases be an invasion of privacy. There might be personal reasons why a man would not want his full wages, with an accompanying statement, to go home and be seen by people there. These reasons might be good or bad. but they were personal reasons and we thought that we had no right to force it on people in this way.
The Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman does not go quite as far as our Amendment in Committee, because our Amendment sought a form of words whereby this would not be done at all unless the employee had made a positive request. We have had to consider whether the Amendment meets our point. We have reached the conclusion that we should be satisfied with the new


formula, for the reason the Minister gave. These are fairly exceptional cases, and in these circumstances the majority of people will want their wages sent home. Particularly if they are away sick they will want their wages sent home rather than have any delay.
Therefore, it is better simply to do it in this way, and to reserve for the small number of people who will not want that to happen the right to opt accordingly and to make a statement to their employer that they do not want it. For those reasons, we welcome the Amendment.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: I am not quite sure what safeguard an employer has when a person is away from his place of employment for either of these two reasons and the employer is under contract to pay the wages. If he cannot send the wages to the man's home address, and if no provision is made whereby the employee can authorise someone to collect his wages for him, is there any means by which the employer can effect an agreement with the employed person that he may hold his wages until such time as arrangements are made for them to be collected?

Mr. Heath: I think that that is the case, and it is covered by the advice which was given by my hon. Friend on the new Clause moved at the beginning of today's proceedings. If an employee wishes to ask his employer to make that sort of arrangement, he is perfectly at liberty to do so.

Mrs. Corbet: If the employer should want to ask an employee to make such an arrangement, and the employee does not agree, what does the employer do about paying the man the money? Is it legal for him to keep the money if the employee does not agree that it shall be sent?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath indicated assent.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 31, at end insert:
(4) If an employed person, by notice in writing given to his employer, declares that he does not wish to have any of his wages paid to him by postal order or money order, that notice—

(a) shall remain in force until cancelled by the employed person by a further notice in writing given to his employer, and

(b) while it remains in force, shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section as a notice excluding him from the operation of this section.—[Mr. Heath.]

Clause 6.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Mr. P. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, to leave out from "not" to the end of line 33 and to insert:
confer any right of recovery in respect of so much of those wages as has been paid in those circumstances, or as represents a lawful deduction taken into account in calculating that payment".
This is a somewhat technical Amendment. When the Bill was looked at again, at the end of the Committee stage, it was felt that it was not quite clear whether a deduction from wages which is lawful under the Truck Acts would be allowed under the Bill and would not give rise to a right of recovery on the part of a worker from whose wages a lawful deduction had been made. Therefore, these words are inserted and are designed expressly to allow an employer to make deductions which are legal under the Truck Acts and to ensure that he is not exposed to an action for their recovery.

Mr. Skeffington: This is a very useful safeguard, because the Bill prevents the Truck Acts operating in a special set of circumstances. There would be real doubt, when the Bill becomes an Act and operates, whether, in that case, all the provisions of the Truck Acts were not being excluded. This puts it beyond any doubt that things which were legal under the Truck Acts will still be legal under the Bill. That is very reasonable, because some such safeguards are certainly required.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, at the end to insert:
and, in relation to any payment made in any of the ways authorised by this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as rendering lawful a deduction which would not be a lawful deduction if the payment had been made to the employed person in cash".
This is a somewhat similar technical Amendment. When the Bill was considered, it was thought that, if the Amendment was not made, it might be possible for an employer to argue that Clause 1 (1, b) would allow him to make deductions which would be illegal under the Truck Acts. The Amendment is


designed to ensure that an employer who pays wages in one of the ways authorised by the Bill may not make deductions which would be illegal under the Truck Acts.

Mr. Skeffington: In fact, it is the reverse of the previous case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move in page 7, line 6, after "person" to insert:
or a prospective employed person".
Hon. Members will remember that we had a discussion on this point in Committee. We withdrew our Amendment so that the position could be looked at again. It is right that, before the House parts with the Bill, and while we still have a chance, we should reconsider the position of, and possible pressures on, a prospective employed person. It is true that, having regard to the form which the Bill now takes, many of the fears which my hon. Friends and I had have now disappeared. But we still have a fear in connection with subsection (7) of the Clause, which we regard as being of the greatest importance to the employed person.
The subsection safeguards his rights and status as a freely contracting party to any agreement, because it states clearly that
Nothing in this Act shall operate so as to enable an employed person to be required, by the terms or conditions of his employment or otherwise, to make such a request …
Obviously, if there were any pressures then all the safeguards built into the Bill so far would be torpedoed.
This provision is satisfactory and is reasonably watertight for the employed person, but when we come to persons who are being considered for a job the position is not so clear. I realise that it is difficult to apply the same watertight arrangements to a person who is not yet a party to any contract, but we want to be assured that advantage is not taken, even during an interview, to put any pressure on a person applying for employment whereby, if he wants the job, he must, in advance, agree to a request for payment to be made by cheque or in other ways authorised under the Bill.
During the Committee proceedings I said that I thought this matter should

not even be discussed during an engagement interview, but, on reflection, I realise that this would be too prohibitive a condition. It may be necessary that the employer shall state that such schemes are in operation; we are only anxious to ensure that a mere discussion would not lead to pressure being put upon a prospective employee.
In answering our fears on this matter, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the remedy of an aggrieved person is simple: the protection is there because any person, subsequently employed, who could say that he had been induced to make a request to get the job, could immediately take advantage of the Truck Acts, which would not be excluded by Clause 1 of the Bill, and he could therefore claim, as it were, compensation by double wages, that is to say, the wages he got by virtue of the agreement and the wages which ought to be paid under the authority of the Truck Acts.
This is true with regard to the fortunate—or unfortunate, as the case may be—man or woman who gets the job. We must realise, however, that there may be a number of applicants, and that those who do not want to make such a request will have no remedy because they would not be employed. So the Parliamentary Secretary's safeguard applies only to a successful applicant.
We still feel that so that there shall be no shadow of doubt that any person seeking employment shall not be subject to pressure, the words "or a prospective employed person" should be inserted in the subsection. This would make it clear beyond any doubt, not only to the employer but also to the prospective employee, that it is not right to induce him to request that his wages shall be paid in a particular manner. This applies also to the employee's agent, the trade union, who might be negotiating on his behalf at any time and who could certainly inform members of their rights.
This Amendment could be a practical way of dealing with our fears. It makes little difference to the obligations of the employer and good employers would not mind the addition of those words. We must remember, however, that not all employers are as careful in this matter as they should be. They may want to have all their wage-earners paid in a


special manner, and there may be inducements to exercise pressure on prospective employees. The introduction of these four words would make that an offence, and would, therefore, be a reasonable safeguard. I hope that even at this stage the Government will feel able to accept the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I support the Amendment for rather a different reason than the one advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). This legislation and the proposed Amendments represent an effort to limit the existing statutory and common law rights.
I could not quote a better parallel to the legislation represented in this Clause than the position under the Shop Clubs Act, 1902. Under that Measure it was considered illegal for any employer, under a contract of service, to require any servant in his employment to submit to any deduction from his wages by a payment to a works club or even to a superannuation fund. This has become significant in the last decade or so because of the tremendous development of superannuation funds throughout industry, which we all welcome and do our best to encourage.
It was always felt that this provision was a technical bar to extending these benefits to employees. The way that this has been overcome in many employments has been that although existing employees could not be compelled to accept membership of a works club, or to join a superannuation fund, new employees engaged after the passing of the scheme could be compelled to join as a condition of service.
There is a great deal of constitutional force in saying, in support of this Amendment, that if we are putting on the Statute Book a Bill which is a variation of the existing law affecting the payment of wages, which can only be carried out by the consent of the workers concerned in giving written permission to the employer to pay wages in a different manner from that which obtained previously, that relationship and freedom to make a contract should remain not only for the existing body of workers, but also for those engaged at a later stage by the companies who wished to

do this. Otherwise, there is no mutuality or equity as between labour and employer in the payment of wages under the Bill.
For that reason alone, in addition to the powerful reasons put forward by my hon. Friend, I think that we would all welcome it on this side of the House if the right hon. Gentleman could accept the Amendment.

Mr. Marsh: This is generally recognised on both sides of the House as an important point. When the Minister opened the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill he made a great point of the freedom of choice which, we believe, is essential to the working of this Measure. Unfortunately, due to other occupations on another Bill, I was not able to get on to the Committee which considered this one. It is true that there was a great degree of co-operation from the other side of the Committee, and it is only fair to say so, but this is a major and important point to my hon. Friends and myself.
It has generally been accepted that this Measure will be worth a great deal to employers. It may be suggested that it will also be worth something to employees, though I doubt whether that is as large a benefit as it is the other way round. One thing is certain. Without wishing to take a particularly Hobbesian view of employers as a body, I believe that many employers will be very keen indeed to ensure that they receive virtually 100 per cent. acceptance of a scheme of payment by cheque. Whilst the safeguards against the employer coercing the existing employee are now considerable, and, I would think, unbreakable, there are no safeguards against the employer coercing the prospective employee.
We realise that this is a difficult problem with which to deal, because the prospective employee is not an employee and. as such, is not covered by the terms of the Bill. But as the Bill stands at present, there is nothing to prevent any employer saying to a prospective employee, or, as will probably happen, to a group of prospective employees, "Well, gentlemen", or whatever he would call them, "all things being equal, in making the choice we would be very much concerned with who, if any of you, were prepared to fit into our existing


arrangements and agree to be paid by cheque." He could put it as boldly as that and there would be nothing in law to stop him offering prospective employees a form to sign.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: Is there anything in the Clause, as amended, to prevent an employer making exactly that sort of statement?

Mr. Marsh: If there is not, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will get a dreadful shock. Our intention is to make it clear in the Bill that nothing in it permits an employer to make such suggestions to an employee. We want to underline this point as much as possible.
This point was raised in Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary's answer was, quite rightly, that the employer could impose these conditions as boldly as that, and that there would be nothing to stop him, but that when the prospective employee had become a de facto employee the employee's defence would be that he could break the agreement because it would have no validity. That is perfectly true, but I do not think that it is a desirable practice to encourage in industry where a person is employed on the basis of certain specific undertakings. In any event, I do not think that the employee's future prospects would be very good, to say the least, if he was employed on the basis of an offer made by his employer and he then resorted to what the employer would regard as a legal "wangle" to break an agreement reached in good faith.
This is a difficult problem and it is certainly one of substance. I hope— indeed, I feel sure—that the Minister will be able to show a continuation of that degree of co-operation which has so far existed, by accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Ray Mawby: We discussed this matter thoroughly in Committee, and I should like to remind the House what the Bill entitles employers to do. All that it does, in certain cases. is to allow an employer and an employee by agreement to set aside the operation of the Truck Acts. Therefore, unless an employer strictly observes the terms of the Bill, he will be liable to the operation of the Truck Acts and the employee will

be able in law to charge the employer with being in breach of the Truck Acts. I should have thought that this matter had been dealt with thoroughly by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee when he pointed out that immediately a person became an employee he was covered by Clause 6 (7).
It is important to remember that all sorts of other considerations enter into the question of an employer taking on a new employee. It would be wrong to assume that an employer would lay upon a prospective employee certain restrictions which he would not apply to his existing employees. I know of a number of instances where the employer stipulates that a prospective employee shall not be taken on unless he belongs to a certain trade union. This is a stipulation with which, no doubt, we will either agree or disagree; nevertheless it is a standard practice which is adopted by a number of employers. But I have not heard it suggested in the House that we should have legislation to prevent an employer laying down conditions which would force a prospective employee to do something which he may or may not want to do. I do not want to take this matter any further because I am a lifelong trade unionist, but I thought it important that the point should be made.
Of course, even if it is stipulated by an employer that a prospective employee must belong to a certain trade union, that person, once he becomes an employee, can allow his contributions to lapse and he can cease to be a member of the union. Then, of course, other things would happen. But in this matter I believe it is perfectly clear, as was announced by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, that if a prospective employee considers that he has agreed under duress to have his wages paid other than in cash, as soon as he becomes an employee he can revoke the agreement which he has made and can say, "I stand by the operation of the Truck Acts, and unless I make an agreement freely with my employer, my employer is bound to pay me cash regardless of this Measure."

Mr. Skeffington: One appreciates that that is the point at which a person has become employed, but we are trying to remove the pressure that might be exercised on persons who stick up for


their rights, who do not agree to make a request, and who will not become employees and, therefore, will have no remedy under the Bill. That is the point.

Mr. Mawby: Very often this condition is applied to people who are members of, for instance, the Transport and General Workers' Union or the Electrical Trades Union and who approach an employer who says to them, "You will join the vehicle builders' union", or whatever is the appropriate union in that shop, "or I shall not employ you." That is just as much duress as any other form of duress.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask you what the Transport and General Workers' Union has got to do with this Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I take it that the hon. Member was using it as an illustration.

Mr. Mawby: I apologise if I have misled hon. Members in using an illustration. If the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) had been present during the Committee stage, he would probably have understood that all the way through I have been devoting myself to the task of trying to ensure that these conditions are applied fairly. In Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that if a prospective employee felt that he was under duress, and if this were a condition on which he had obtained his employment, immediately he became an employee he would be in the same position as any other person employed in that firm. He could, therefore, without any danger at all revoke any agreement he has reached on this particular point.

Mr. Marsh: Does the hon. Gentleman think that this is a desirable state of affairs, that the only way in which a prospective employee can obtain the freedom of choice which both sides want to ensure for employees should be by deliberately agreeing to something in the full knowledge that, the moment he gets the job on that basis, he will dishonour the agreement? Is that a particularly satisfactory way of dealing with the matter?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Mawby: Hon. Members opposite are assuming that an employer will take that attitude. I do not agree that, when a prospective employee applies to him, a prospective employer will automatically lay it down, in effect, "Unless you agree that your wages may be paid other than in cash, I shall refuse to employ you". I do not think that that will happen anyway. That is the crux of the matter. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite may disagree, but, if they disagree, why on earth was a similar Amendment withdrawn in Committee?
There is no evidence at all to show that an employer would take all the risks associated with the possibility of having action taken against him in the courts by an employee who felt that his employer was contravening the Truck Acts. I believe that the Amendment is entirely unnecessary and, even if it were regarded as necessary, the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee showed that there is adequate opportunity, immediately a prospective employee becomes an employee, when he need no longer be compelled to carry out even an agreement which he felt he ought to accept under duress.

Mr. Dan Jones: First of all, I must tell the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that the Amendment was withdrawn in Committee precisely to allow for this situation. Surely, that was a proper thing to do and quite feasible.
I hope that the Minister will give serious and sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. I shall not repeat what has been said already, but I must emphasise that the Amendment was very carefully prepared. We are concerned about the number of skilled men available and we want such skilled men as we have—I am referring particularly to engineers—to have the maximum of mobility. I should hate to see anything at all prescribed which would militate against that mobility.
A man may be perfectly satisfactory in all respects and yet, for his own personal reasons, he may not wish to enter into a scheme of payment suggested by an employer. For that reason, although he is suitable technically, he may be rejected. From my personal experience, I can well imagine such a man going to


his local trade union officers and telling them that there is a job at such-and-such a place, a job he can do, but, although the employers want him, he has been rejected on that ground. There would be a dispute immediately, and we should be the authors of it.
There seems to be no reason at all why this very simple but none the less effective Amendment should not be made. If we do not make it, we shall have one law for the employed and quite a different law for the prospective employee, and that, I think, would not be playing the game.

Mr. Loughlin: We spent some time on this matter in Committee. There is only one reason why it has been brought up again. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said
it will be looked at again so that we can be certain that the words … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st March, 1960, c. 136.]
and so on.
No one on this side of the House suggests that the mere insertion of these words will deal entirely with the circumstances outlined by right hon. and hon. Members. What we want to insert is some provision to deal with the employer who may indulge in malpractices. I have lived long enough to know that all employers are not bad employers. I know many employers who would not think for a moment of trying to impose a condition of this kind on a prospective employee; nor would they discriminate between someone who would give an assurance and someone who would not. But, equally, I know certain employers who might well do that.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill indicates that every employer will be paying both by cheque and by cash, since it is clear that some employees will opt to be paid by cheque and some will opt to be paid by cash. Why should an employer in such circumstances ask any prospective employee to accept his wages in one way or the other? In view of the fact that he will be paying both by cash and by cheque, it will make no difference which form of payment is asked for.

Mr. Loughlin: There is some substance in that point, but there may be an employer who desires to introduce gradually the system of payment by cheque for all his employees. A proportion of his existing employees may agree that their wages shall be paid by cheque, but, if the employer's desire is that all his employees shall adopt this system, obviously the more prospective employees he can induce to accept it the greater will be the proportion of people being paid by cheque and the more quickly will the day come when he can have what he wants.

Mr. Lewis: I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman is then assuming that any employer will take bad employees, although, presumably, he will want the best he can get in order to ensure that he gradually reaches the situation where he is paying wholly by cheque.

Mr. Loughlin: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, in many industries today, there is much repetitive work and, consequently, any question of employees being good, bad or indifferent is really hypothetical at the time of their engagement. All things being equal, any one among a number of employees could be employed by the employer and, consequently, the choice may well be between one who agrees to have his wages paid by cheque and one who does not agree. I realise that there are variations in labour value among all employees, but, other things being equal, such a situation as I have indicated may well arise.
To return to my original argument, the mere insertion of these words will not of itself necessarily achieve the result we have in mind. No matter what we do, people desirous of getting round the law will do so. If prescriptive words of the kind suggested in the Amendment were written into the Bill, there would be less likelihood of people taking advantage of the law. That is the simple issue.
I personally cannot complain about the response which the Minister gave to the points that we raised in Committee. I think that the Notice Paper today proves that he has done everything he possibly could to meet the points put from both sides in Committee; but I am still wondering why he will not accept the Amendment.
Only one argument was advanced against the Amendment in Committee. It was that the Amendment was not necessary, in that once a prospective employee becomes employed he comes under the umbrella of the Measure. But that is equally an argument for inserting these words in the Bill. If when a person becomes employed he comes under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, there is no reason why he should not come under it initially when he is still a prospective employee.
I should like to know the Minister's objection to the Amendment. I am not speaking simply to obstruct the right hon. Gentleman. I want provisions put in the Bill which will enable it to work not only successfully but equitably between employer and employee. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why he will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. A. V. Hilton: I should also like to appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment. I understood the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) to say that he has been a lifelong trade unionist: so have many hon. Members on this side of the House. I am a lifelong trade unionist. I represent agricultural workers, the lowest-paid workers in the country. It is on their behalf that I should like to say a few words.
Acceptance of the Amendment would be of advantage to agricultural workers, bearing in mind that, although this is 1960, any sort of agreement is the exception rather than the rule. Most things are still done by word of mouth. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that the majority of employers are all right, but some get in a muddle, especially in an industry where there is nothing down in writing. Acceptance of the Amendment would give a square deal, particularly, to farm workers. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thomas: I fully appreciate the deep feeling hon. Members have expressed about the principle underlying the Amendment. We had a considerable discussion on this matter in Committee, and I do not think there was much at

issue between us. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said:
What we want to ensure is that when an individual is being interviewed for a job it shall not be a condition of his taking up the employment that he must take his wages in a certain way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st March, 1960; c. 137.]
I would agree with that. I think that the House is anxious to ensure that, when a person who is interviewed for a job is told that it is a condition of employment that he should take his wages in one of the ways set out in the Bill, then, if that person takes up employment, all payments of wages made to him will be illegal and the employer will be in contravention of the Truck Acts. In accordance with the promise that I gave in Committee, I have considered this matter very carefully and I have been advised on it. What I said in Committee is quite true.
Perhaps I may put one or two points to the House. First, even if the proposed words were inserted, an employer who tells a prospective employee that a condition of his employment would be that he should, shall we say, take his wages by cheque would not have done anything illegal. He would be in contravention of the Truck Acts only as soon as there was a contract of employment. I am advised that if a prospective employee had been required to enter into a contract of employment in that way, the employer would be in breach of the Truck Acts. He would be liable to the penalties under Section 9 of the Truck Act, 1831, and any payments that he made to the employee afterwards, in the ways envisaged by the Bill, would be illegal and void.
That is a tremendous sanction. The House will appreciate that if an employer requires a prospective employee, even before he has been employed under a contract of employment, to enter into a contract under this Bill against his will, he is running a great risk. I submit that the words set out in the Bill adequately cover this matter. Any additional words would only tend to detract from the force of the words in Clause 6 (7). The insertion of the Amendment would not confer any rights upon a person who applies for a job and is not engaged. The Truck Acts, as the House will understand, protect only those who are employed. I submit that subsection


(7) is very wide and adequately covers the fears expressed by hon. Members

Mr. Loughlin: Might I deal with the question of the breach of the Act? At present an enormous number of wages council Orders are operating, and the inspectorate daily makes inspections and finds an enormous number of people not complying with the provisions. I suggest that it is much better to put into an Order something simple stating what the position is rather than to have the situation which applies at the present time. The wages council legislation is constantly breached by employers who are not too careful what they do under the Acts.

Mr. P. Thomas: As we see it, the subsection adequately covers the matter. I agree that all Acts of Parliament must be difficult to interpret by lay people— indeed, they are difficult to interpret by lawyers—but this is the sort of thing that can well be made clear in the explanatory leaflet which it was stated during the Committee stage would be sent out. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if one were all the time to put in words of explanation the Bill would become very unwieldy and very often the effect of what might be a very good Clause would be considerably weakened.

Mr. D. Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: An hon. Member can speak only once in a debate on Report.

Mr. Prentice: In view of the very strong case which has been put to the hon. Gentleman by a number of my hon. Friends, we find the Parliamentary Secretary's reply very disappointing. Even if he takes the view that the Bill as it stands provides as much protection as it would if it were amended in this way, we have to bear in mind that what matters is not only what the Bill says but what it is understood to mean by the people concerned, in this case the employers and those going to them for employment. As the Bill stands, the understanding will be that the safeguards exist only when the contract of employment has come into effect. Indeed, in another part of his speech the Parliamentary Secretary tended to confirm that.
Suppose at an interview for employment the applicants are presented with a duplicated or printed letter containing an application for their wages to be paid in a certain way—one which suits the employer—and who is to get the job is settled after the signatures have been put on the form. As I understand the hon. Gentleman, the man who gets the job can later seek a remedy under the Truck Acts, commencing proceedings and saying that his wages have been paid illegally.
I suppose he would have another remedy; he could sign another piece of paper in the form of an application to withdraw the proposal that his wages should be paid in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was right when he said that people would not behave in that way. If they did, what might not happen to them later on on some other pretext? At all events, pressure would have been applied at the interview and in the majority of cases the employees would continue to get their wages in a way for which they had not voluntarily and freely opted. That is the danger that we seek to remove by our Amendment.
It seems to us that Clause 6 (7) is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It provides that it should not be a condition of employment for wages to be paid in a particular way. It seems to us that here we have indicated a loophole. In Committee we invited the Government to find a form of words which would dose the gap. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), we withdrew our Amendment upon an indication from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would look at the point. We are very disappointed that it has not been met although other points that we raised in Committee have been met by the Government. Even now the Government could say that they would have another look at the matter and possibly introduce an Amendment in another place. If not, it seems to us that we are leaving a loophole open for abuse of the Clause and the Bill.
There is another factor to be considered, as has already been pointed out. If there are two or three applicants for a job, how are we to know on what grounds one is chosen? Possibly no form of words could give 100 per cent.


protection, but here we are seeking to give more protection than the Bill gives at present. There is also the case of people who have obtained jobs after having signed a form at the interview applying for their wages to be paid in a way which suits the employer. They are not likely to seek remedies under the Truck Acts afterwards.
Consequently, we find the Parliamentary Secretary's statement very disappointing, and I appeal to him even at this stage to say that he will look at the point again.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 7.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. P. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 8, line 6, at the end to insert:
(3) References in this Act to a deduction do not include a part of an employed person's wages which is paid into an account at a bank in pursuance of such a request as is mentioned in subsection (6) of section one of this Act.
This is a purely technical Amendment. It is designed to make it clear that payment into a bank in pursuance of a request for the payment of part of wages in this way is not to be treated for the purposes of the pay statement as a deduction. This provision is necessary because Clause 2 and the Schedule require the pay statement to show payments of wages and deductions separately.

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "paid" to the end and to add:
 in any of the ways authorised by this Act.
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, his Amendment refers to part payments under Clause 1 (6) and declares that the part payments shall not be deductions and, therefore, shall be lawful. But there are also part payments which are provided for under Clause 4 (4). In the case of payments by postal order or money order to which a request under Clause 1 already applies, part may be paid into a bank and part may be paid by postal order. If we declare that the part paid into a bank is a lawful deduction—or not a deduction,

as my hon. Friend's Amendment says—then the part which is paid by postal order must surely be a deduction and, therefore, unlawful. It would surely be much clearer to say that any deduction authorised by the Bill should be included and not merely the one which relates to payment into a bank.
If my Amendment to the proposed Amendment is accepted, subsection (3) will read:
References in this Act to a deduction do not include a part of an employed person's wages which is paid in any of the ways authorised by this Act.
That is surely what is intended by my hon. Friend's Amendment—that "deductions" do not include any deductions "authorised by this Act". I cannot see the reason for restricting it to deductions made by payment of a part of the wages into a bank. To restrict it to these makes it look as if the postal order payment is in some way unlawful when payments are split up into a bank statement and a postal order payment.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Thomas: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising this matter. Perhaps I should say that the purpose of my right hon. Frjend's Amendment was to make it clear that, as I said, payment into a bank in pursuance of a request for part of wages to be paid in that way was not to be treated, for purposes of the pay statement, as a deduction.
The reason we singled out payments into a banking account for special treatment was because we felt that an employer might be somewhat confused in that payments into a banking account would not be payments direct to an employee and that, therefore, the employer might think that it was something which would have to be put into the statement as a deduction. In the case of payment to an employee direct, by cheque, by money order or by postal order, the average employer would have no doubt at all that he would not have to put that down as a deduction.
I quite understand what my hon. Friend has said and I agree that there may be cases in which there is confusion and that, therefore, it may be as well to make certain that no employer is


under any misapprehension. I am perfectly prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, at the end to insert:
(e) the Post Office Savings Bank.
The possibility of adding the Post Office Savings Bank to the list of other savings banks which are eligible for the provisions of the Bill was mentioned on Second Reading and again in Committee. We have been waiting to hear the final conclusions of the Government on the matter. In a sense, we put down this Amendment to enable the Government to give us, we hope, some more news of the matter this afternoon.
Our arguments in favour of adding the Post Office can be stated very briefly. The first is that the object of the Bill is to enlarge the freedom of the individual workman to receive his wages in different ways and that, therefore, we should cast the net as widely as we can and, if at all possible, include the Post Office Savings Bank.
The second reason is that post offices are generally more accessible throughout the country, especially in rural areas. There are sub-post offices in quite small communities where, of course, there are no branches of banks. Our third reason is that we think that the Post Office Savings Bank, as it operates at present— we appreciate that it would need some amendment to its rules—offers a very good bargain to those who save through it, and we should like to see that benefit extended. We think that important from the point of view of those who use it.
We would add that the Post Office is something that belongs to us, and therefore, we have put down the Amendment as good Socialists. We say that here is a Bill which is to provide new business for privately-owned banks and we do not see why it should not provide new business for the publicly-owned Post Office.
On Second Reading and in Committee the Minister was not altogether unsympathetic to the suggestion, but he indicated

that he was consulting his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on these matters because, as he said, some amendment would be required to the Post Office Savings Bank Act and that many changes would have to be made in the organisation of the Post Office if it were to operate this service.
This is something that was recommended by the Radcliffe Committee, which suggested that the operations of the Post Office Savings Bank should be extended. I looked eagerly at the White Paper on the new status of the Post Office, issued yesterday, to see whether there was any indication in it of alterations which would meet the point. That does not seem to be the case. At any rate, we are now offering the Minister an opportunity of telling us what further progress has been made in his talks with his right hon. Friend and whether he can give us any more news about the prospect of including the Post Office Savings Bank in the list.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has very accurately described the position. At the end of the Committee stage I undertook to inform the House, on Report, whether my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was yet in a position to say what his plans were in regard to this aspect of the working of the Post Office. I was in consultation with my right hon. Friend at the end of last week when we put down the rest of the Amendments.
The inquiries which my right hon. Friend is making into the changes that would be required in the internal organisation of the Post Office, if it were to be included in the Bill, and also as a result of the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee have proceeded quite a long way, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to announce his conclusions on the inquiries that he has been making. Therefore, I think that, for the reasons I gave in Committee, it would still be wise not to include the Post Office Savings Bank in the definition in the Bill. Of course, as soon as my right hon. Friend is able to announce any conclusions we shall be able to take action. If, while the Bill was going through another place, he were able to do so, we could take action there.
As I explained on Second Reading and again in Committee, and, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, if the Post Office Savings Bank is to be used in the scheme the changes would require legislation. As soon as those changes can be made, this Bill could be amended by that legislation so as to include the Post Office Savings Bank in the scheme, so that no time would be lost if it proved practical to include the Post Office Savings Bank. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ede: Surely it would be a very great pity to have to introduce another Bill and go through all its stages in two Houses of Parliament to do this very sensible thing. Could it not be done in another place by inserting these words and then making the bringing into operation of this phrase in the Bill dependent upon an appointed day to be fixed by the Minister in accordance with Clause 7, line 16, which enables him to make appointed days?
The right hon. Gentleman knows from his immediate past experience how unpopular it is with Chief Whips when Ministers come along and say, "I just want a little Bill to correct something that we could not quite do when we passed the original Measure." The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties that might arise if he did that. If he could promise us that he would try, in another place, to amend the Bill on the lines I have mentioned, we should be very glad.

Mr. Heath: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated that it is not the legislation in respect of this Bill which is worrying us. It is that the system of the Post Office itself would have to be changed to enable the Bill to be operated for the payment into Post Office Savings Bank accounts of wages. The change in the system would itself require legislation. It is not merely a matter of including the Post Office Bank among the institutions to be used under the Bill. The main question is changing the Post Office Savings Bank Act, 1954. That would need to be changed to enable the Post Office system itself to be changed, to enable the Post Office to be used under the Bill.
Rather than mislead some people by adding the Post Office Bank to the

institutions named in the Bill, we think that it should be left to be included in the Bill which itself will change the Post Office system.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman knows how awkward draftsmen are when there is a suggestion that legislation dealing with certain subjects should be in certain Acts. This is a Payment of Wages Bill and if draftsmen want to be awkward they will tell the right hon. Gentleman, as he well knows, that it would be very wrong to put a provision dealing with the payment of wages to ordinary people in a Bill amending Post Office law. He and I, of course, can go on arguing small points on this matter from past experience and nobody will get much further.
I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to examine these two points very carefully—the position of the Post Office and the position of this Bill—in such a way that we shall not need to have a new Payment of Wages Bill and all payment of wages matters will be in Payment of Wages Acts.

Mr. Mapp: I take perhaps what is a minority view about this aspect of the Bill. I would condition the whole Bill on the acceptance and the implementation of its operation being available through the Post Office. I would not permit the Bill to become an Act conferring great advantages on the banking institutions whose hours of business are limited for working people and whose facilities are not readily accessible to them. In looking at this subject, the Government should approach the next few years with a view to expanding facilities for ordinary people in substitution for the payment of cash, and they should bring completely into the picture the services of the Post Office.
It should be remembered that post offices are much more accessible than banks. They are to be found in almost every village and every district of every town and all people, especially working people, are familiar with the Post Office and its personnel and have complete trust in it. I feel that there is pressure behind the introduction of the Bill. I can recognise the pressure that is coming from great banking institutions and massive industrial organisations. If, by means of the Bill, the House confers on these authorities considerable advantages in terms of accountancy and the


facilities flowing to workpeople will be still restricted to existing banking institutions, I shall withhold my consent to the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Even now, despite what the Minister has said, and after reading again with interest the White Paper "The Status of the Post Office", issued last night, to see whether the Postmaster-General was prepared to look at the Post Office with a vision of the future or be involved in some argument about the past, I notice that no provision is made for the expansion of Post Office services so that the Post Office can provide the banking arrangements of the average employed man and woman.
I feel so strongly about this that I would not be prepared to let this matter go through unopposed. I hope that the Minister and the Postmaster-General will look again to the future. We all want to encourage the idea of banking and savings, and I beg the Government to extend their vision away from existing banking institutions and bring the Post Office within the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Harry Randall: I understood that the Minister, in giving his explanation to the House, said that proceedings had gone quite a long way in the inquiry from his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General on whether this proposal should be implemented. In putting the matter over in a very conciliatory way, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was inviting the House to postpone or not take a decision, but I took note that when he said that inquiries had proceeded quite a long way he gave no indication whether the proposal had been received favourably or unfavourably.
If the disposition is to give the matter favourable consideration, the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) should be adopted in another place. There may be difficulties, but if there is good will and the difficulties are surmounted, then surely it is better so to amend the Bill that when it becomes necessary to amend the Post Office Act we shall not then be in the position of having to amend two instead of one Measure. I ask the Minister to be good enough to tell us whether the proceedings of inquiry

so far indicate a favourable reception. If he can go that far, would he not also consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion?

Mr. Heath: In reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) it is, of course, just these very inquiries that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is making. I assure the hon. Member, as I have assured the House, that my right hon. Friend is looking at the matter very thoroughly to find whether the Post Office can and should be adapted to this system. It is a fairly complex matter and one can visualise the considerable changes which would be required in the system.
I cannot tell the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) whether the matter is being reviewed favourably or unfavourably because, as I said, my right hon. Friend has not yet reached a conclusion. Inquiries have gone a long way. My right hon. Friend informed the House in December that he had set up a committee inside the Post Office to examine this and the recommendations of the Radcliffe Report, but he is not yet able to tell me his conclusions.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) speaks from a distinguished position of experience. It would not be for me to indicate to the House that any draftsman has been other than extremely helpful to a Minister— while in power. All that I would like to say is that we have looked to the future with those concerned and I am satisfied that this matter can be dealt with in this way. If my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General reaches a conclusion in time to deal with this in another place we shall have the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Prentice: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give us a decision today, but I appreciate the way in which he has dealt with the matter. I can assure him that we shall keep after him about it, and from time to time will return to the subject, either at Question Time or on other occasions, to see how he is getting on. If he is able to do something by the time the Bill reaches another place, we shall be all the more happy. In any case. I hope that it will not be too long before the Post


Office Savings Bank can extend its activities in the way suggested, and be brought within the scope of the Bill.
Having said that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Heath. Amendment in page 8, line 41.

Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I understand that the Amendment in page 8, line 41, to leave out "and the Schedule

Orders of the Day — New Schedule.—(PAY STATEMENTS.)

PART 1


Deductions


5
1.—(1) Where in pursuance of such a request as is mentioned in section one of this Act (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the relevant request") a payment of wages (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the relevant payment") is made in one of the ways authorised by this Act, and—


10
(a) in connection with that payment, a statement in writing (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the relevant statement") is given to the employed person for the purposes of subsection (4) of section two of this Act, and


(b) that statement complies with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c), and (if applicable) of paragraph (d), of subsection (5) of section two of this Act, but does not comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of that subsection,


15
the relevant statement shall nevertheless be treated as complying with the requirements of paragraph (b) of that subsection if it complies with the alternative requirements set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Schedule.



(2) In the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule "relevant deduction" means a deduction made from the gross amount of the wages in calculating the relevant payment.


20
2. The relevant statement must state the amount of each relevant deduction which is not a fixed deduction, and the matters in respect of which each such deduction is made.



3. The relevant statement must either specify the aggregate amount of all those relevant deductions which are fixed deductions, or contain particulars sufficient, without reference to any other document, to enable that aggregate amount to be ascertained.


25
4. Not more than twelve months before the date of the relevant payment there must have been given to the employed person a statement in writing (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as a "statement of fixed deductions") specifying—


30
(a) the matters in respect of which fixed deductions from his wages were to be made, and


(b) the amount of each such fixed deduction in accordance with the rate thereof applicable to him at the time when that statement was given to him.


35
5. If, at any time during the period beginning with the date on which the statement of fixed deductions (or, if more than one such statement has been given to the employed person, the most recent statement of fixed deductions) was given to the employed person and ending with the date of the relevant payment, there has been any change in the fixed deductions specified in that statement, whether by the addition of a new fixed deduction or the cancellation of a fixed deduction, or by way of an increase or decrease in the amount of a fixed deduction, notice in writing of that change must either—


40
(a) have been given to the employed person before the date of the relevant statement, or


(b) be given to him in the relevant statement or together therewith.

to", is a paving Amendment to the new Schedule, and closely related to some Amendments I have tabled to that Schedule. Therefore, if this Amendment were to go through, I should be precluded from dealing with my Amendments to the new Schedule.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The Amendments are to the new Schedule, and the hon. Gentleman cannot move them until the Schedule has been read a Second time.

Mr. Heath: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend by saying that, for the reason he has mentioned, I do not propose to move this Amendment.

PART II


Instalment of wages paid in different ways



6. This Part of this Schedule applies to any instalment of wages of which—


45
(a) part is paid in one of the ways authorised by this Act in pursuance of a request made by the employed person in accordance with subsection (6) of section one of this Act, and


50 
(b) the whole or part of the balance is paid in another of those ways, either in pursuance of another such request made by him or by virtue of subsection (3) of section four of this Act.


55
7. In relation to an instalment of wages to which this Part of this Schedule applies paragraph (d) of subsection (5) of section two of this Act shall be construed as requiring the net amount of the part thereof referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of the last preceding paragraph, and the net amount of the balance, or part of the balance, referred to in sub- paragraph (b) of the last preceding paragraph, to be separately shown in the statement, as well as the net amount of the balance (if any) which is not paid in any of the ways authorised by this Act.


60
8. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule payment into different accounts, whether at the same or at different banks, shall be treated as payment in different ways authorised by this Act.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heath: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
This new Schedule, and my Amendment in page 10, line 1, to leave out the Schedule, reorganise the Schedule to the Bill. As I have already mentioned, we found ourselves faced with considerable difficulties in Standing Committee because of those firms and nationalised industries that discovered, on examining

the Schedule, that it would not allow them to operate systems that have been working satisfactorily.
The main difficulties over the old Schedule arose from the provisions governing "grouping" and fixed deductions, and I undertook to find another Schedule that was simpler and which did not present these difficulties. The House may think the new Schedule


rather long. On the other hand, it is much simpler and more straightforward than was the original one.
The main provisions are contained in paragraphs 2 to 5, which set out the way in which the pay statements shall be provided. What we have tried to do is not only to help those employers who have approached us on the matter, but to see that the workman gets the proper kind of information to which he is entitled. Paragraphs 2 to 5 provide that the weekly pay statement that the man gets with his wages, when being paid by one of these methods, should show separately the amount of those deductions that vary from week to week.
Any deduction that changes weekly will be shown separately, and the rest may be grouped together. At the same time, the: employee must receive a full statement once every year. When we drafted the original Schedule we thought that it would be desirable that the man should receive a full statement more frequently, but we have since found in so many cases that the statements are being provided, apparently satisfactorily, once a year, and that so many large systems are based on this, that the yearly provision would appear to meet the case.
The other main point of the Schedule is that when a change in deductions is made, usually, presumably, at the request of an employee who wants an additional deduction made or a present deduction cancelled for some reason, all that is necessary under the new Schedule is for him to be informed in the weekly statement in which the change is made for the first time.
Under the original Schedule it was necessary to set out once again the complete scheme of all deductions being made. It was pointed out to us very recently that this, too, did not fit in with the present systems now in operation. Therefore, we have set out this provision in these paragraphs of Part I of the new Schedule. We think that it is quite clearly stated that it will meet the needs of the present systems, and will give the information that every employee is fully entitled to have.
At the same time, it is a flexible system. When we add the power which the House has already granted to the Minister to make a change in it by Statutory Instrument under the negative

Resolution procedure, I think that the Schedule will be able to meet the operation of the Bill, and I hope that the House will feel that we have achieved our purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Schedule, in line 4, to leave out from "Where" to "(in" in line 5.

Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is this an Amendment to the new Schedule now before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is an Amendment to the new Schedule.

Mr. Graham Page: This Amendment refers to line 4 of the new Schedule, and line 4 is, in fact, the first line of the text. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with the leave of the House, I might also discuss the other two Amendments standing in my name: in line 5, leave out from "Act" to "a" and in line 10, after "Act" insert:
or for the purposes of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section four of this Act

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With the leave of the House.

Mr. Graham Page: I am much obliged. Perhaps I can at once dispose of the Amendment in line 5. It seeks to leave out the words in brackets in the second line of the text of the new Schedule:
… (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as "the relevant request")…
If one ploughs right through the new Schedule, nowhere is the "relevant request" mentioned. I am afraid that the words in parenthesis got in in error—

Mr. Ede: The draftsmen again.

Mr. Graham Page: Having disposed of that, I will now deal with the substantial part of my Amendment. The first part of the new Schedule deals with what one might call the consolidated statement of deductions. It permits an employer to give a short statement of deductions.
In the original Schedule to the Bill, the employer was entitled to give that consolidated statement of deductions, not only in the case of payment into a


bank but also in the case of payment by postal order or money order under the emergency Clause, if I may so call it—Clause 4. That resulted from the words at the end of the first paragraph of the old Schedule:
…or for the purposes of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of section four of this Act.
For some reason about which I am not quite clear, those words are left out of the new Schedule. I ask that they shall be restored so that the consolidated statement of deductions—the short form, if I may call it that—can be used when payment is made by postal order or money order in the emergency case as well as in the normal case of payment of wages into a bank. I should have thought that the emergency case was just the case in which one would want to use the short, consolidated statement. What I mean by the consolidated statement of deductions is a statement showing fixed deductions in aggregate.
If my Amendment is not accepted, it would mean that when an employee was sick, and there was no request to the employer not to pay the man by postal order or money order, the employer could pay by postal order or money order but would have to send the long statement of deductions. He could not use the Schedule as my right hon. Friend has drafted it. He would have to turn back to Clause 2 (4) and give a full statement of deductions showing each item of deductions. That seems to me to be quite wrong. If we are giving the advantage of the Schedule in the normal course of payment of wages, surely we should give the advantage of it in the case of emergency payment by postal order.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: Will the hon. Member say exactly what he means when he says that fixed deductions can be put in the statement by aggregate? I did not follow his meaning.

Mr. Graham Page: By paragraph 3 in Part I of the new Schedule,
The relevant statement must either specify the aggregate amount of all those relevant deductions which are fixed deductions, or contain particulars sufficient …
Then, every twelve months, the employee would have a full statement showing how his deductions were made. By use of the

Schedule, the short form provided by paragraph 3 could be used.

Mr. Jack Jones: I hope that the Government will reject the idea of aggregate deduction. It will only mean duplication and additional work. A man who takes up employment agrees to a method of payment and gets his weekly pay slip, which shows his deductions week by week. Then he may fall sick. It is suggested that, because he falls sick, he should have something shown in aggregate deduction against his normal receipt of wages. There are some companies that do this today. The modern companies, the real companies, show a complete form of deduction.
I have with me a pay slip showing 36 sub-divisions of various types of wages and deductions, including bus fares. Men are entitled to know these details and whether it is a penny for Dr. Barnardo's Homes or something for the children's fund, the hospital Saturday fund, sick pay, superannuation, coal, fuel, lighting or overalls. Heaven only knows what they all are on his pay slip. Incidentally, the figure of £9 19s. 11d. comes in here. The 9s. 11d. is for National Insurance. I do not suggest that it should be made up to the even 10s., but there it is.
I hope that we shall not further complicate this idea. All credit is due to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) in suggesting that we should show people where their earnings come from. Equally, they should be entitled to see exactly where their money goes week by week. I hope, however, that the Government will disagree with the idea that because a man is off sick or it is easy to send him a money or postal order, his deductions can be shown in the aggregate of 9s., 15s., £1 or whatever the amount may be.

Mr. Heath: I turn, first, to my hon. Friend's second Amendment, in line 5. After I had asked the Committee upstairs, and this afternoon the House, not to insert words that were considered to be unnecessary, my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) now asks me to remove from the Schedule words which, he has pointed out, are unnecessary. I must, therefore, ask the indulgence of the House for the fact that they appear in the Schedule. My hon. Friend's inspired understanding


of how the words came to be there is quite right. They were a remnant of a previous draft. Therefore, I am happy to accept the Amendment to remove some unnecessary words.
I come now to the remaining two Amendments. The hon. Member for Rotherharn (Mr. Jack Jones) has just spoken about pay statements. Nothing in the Schedule prevents a firm from giving more information than is basically specified in the Schedule. What we are trying to do is to meet the needs of those firms which have well-established systems that are accepted both by employers and by trade unions. In particular, we had representations from the British Transport Commission, the London Transport Executive and the National Coal Board, which are some of the largest employers with systems which function well.
My hon. Friend's Amendment deals with Clause 4. He has pointed out that in a system that was intended to deal with emergencies we are asking the employer to give the fullest form of statement which, normally, would be given a minimum of once a year, or more frequently if he so wished. I am not entirely satisfied that the way in which my hon. Friend's Amendment deals with this matter would meet the case.
It would be reasonable that where an employer is using a system which fits in with the Schedule—in other words, meets the requirements under the Schedule—it should be in order for him when making a payment under Clause 4 to make the normal pay statement which would be made for the week—that is the logical way of dealing with it—and he should not interrupt the rhythm of the process to produce anything more. On the other hand, if the employer is not using a system which is acceptable under the Schedule, he should provide a full statement if he is taking advantage of the provisions of Clause 4.
If my hon. Friend is willing to accept my assurance, we will endeavour to find a form of words—I think we have one— which we could put down in another place, so that when Clause 4 is used that would be the position. If an employer is using a system which corresponds to the Schedule, the normal pay statement for the week in question will

be given if the employer makes use of Clause 4 for emergency purposes. If, on the other hand, he is not using a system which corresponds to the Schedule, he must send out the full pay statement, so that the man receiving his wage packet knows what are his deductions for the week. If this is agreeable to my hon. Friend, perhaps he will be prepared to consider withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Robens: On the whole, the new Schedule commends itself to us. We must bear in mind that machine accounting will develop and we do not want constantly to have to change an Act of Parliament to fit in with modern requirements and techniques. What is important, however, is that the worker should have the right to know exactly what deductions are made.
Reading the Schedule, simplified though it is, I am not sure that the worker has any right other than the normal right of going to the wages or pay clerk at his place of employment for an explanation of the deductions. Under the Schedule, all the regular deductions will be aggregated. They would be the sort of deductions that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) has mentioned, including regular contributions to various charities which are deducted from pay by agreement, and other regular sums of that character.
Under the Schedule, an employee will be entitled once a year to have the whole of the details. It may well be that there is argument concerning the pay, particularly the complicated pay in, say, the cotton industry, where people have difficult computations to make. Within the Schedule, therefore, an individual worker should have the right to be able to ask, his employer to explain at any time, in any week, any deductions that have been made in aggregate but which have not been shown separately. I do not think that the Schedule provides for that, although I do not want to make too much of it.
I accept the whole idea of the Minister on this matter, because we had a good talk about it in Committee and the resultant Schedule is an excellent one. It appears to me, however, to have that weakness. In considering the Bill, one has always wanted to safeguard the rights of the recipient of wages. I should


be a little happier if a worker had the right to be given details of his pay deductions at any time he was in doubt.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could consider this. It may be that more suitable words might be put in so as to get that right. I do not think that, in practice, it is a right which would be exercised to a great extent, but I can imagine that there would be occasions when a man might be in doubt, having only an annual statement, as to exactly what these aggregate deductions are in detail. He should have the right to ask what they are.
I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman to say now whether or not he can do it, but to consider it, and, if he finds that it can be done without militating against the whole idea of the Bill, or breaking down the arrangements to be made, to deal with it in another place. Otherwise, the Schedule is admirable, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Schedule, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made to the proposed Schedule: In line 5, leave out from "Act" to "a".—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.

Amendment made: In page 10, line 1, leave out Schedule.—[Mr. Heath.]

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Heath: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has just mentioned, we have had a very full discussion on this Bill, both in Committee and today, and the House will agree that a considerable number of useful improvements have been made. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and to my hon. Friends for the suggestions they have made, for the way in which the Bill has been discussed and for the improvements which they have helped us to make in it.
I do not think that there is a great deal left for me to say on Third Reading

about its contents. On Second Reading I described it as being a modest but not unimportant Measure and that remains true. I will deal with only one major point which has concerned us all the way through our debates—that those who can take advantage of the Bill should have the fullest information about it.
Throughout the Bill, in the safeguards which we have tried to write into it, we have had the sanction against an employer that the wages would not, in fact, have been paid if he did not observe the conditions of the Bill. That has been a main and very powerful sanction. On the other hand, it is very important that all those concerned should know the real meaning of the provisions of the Bill. I therefore gave an undertaking upstairs that we would do our utmost, as soon as the Bill received the Royal Assent, to publicise it and to make known its provisions and the way in which they can be operated. I assure the House again that we shall do that.
The points which we have discussed and the observations expressed on them will figure in the publication which we shall make available. I hope that the House will feel that even those things which we have not been able to write into the Bill we shall be able to publicise through the leaflet which will become available. We shall have discussions with the British Employers' Confederation and the Trades Union Congress, as well as with the nationalised industries and others who have been able to help us in the course of drafting the Bill, in order to see that we have covered all the points. We shall make quite certain that the matters raised in the House and upstairs will be covered as well.
A number of reasons were put forward in our debates about why this Bill would be useful. I will not go over that again, but I feel that this makes a change in the law, which has been the statute law of this country for the last 130 years, and will enable those who wish to take advantage of a new way of handling their own private affairs to do so. Many will want to take advantage of it, but others will prefer to continue in the same way.
The Bill will remove one difference between those covered by the Truck Acts from the point of view of payment of wages and those who are not so covered —between those who have always been able to make use of these facilities and those who have not. It will break down one barrier there, and I hope that it will be thought to be a useful Measure from the point of view of our industrial population as a whole. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Prentice: It would be fair to say that throughout our discussions the Bill has been received with mixed feelings on our side of the House. We find the mixture a little more palatable now, because some of our suggestions have been accepted, but, nevertheless, our feelings are still somewhat mixed.
On the one hand, we feel that this is a good Bill in that, as the Minister has pointed out, it does direct a blow at artificial distinctions between those classified as manual workers under the Truck Acts and other workers. These distinctions are absurd in the way in which they have been handed down in legal decisions. For instance, a bus driver is a manual worker within the Truck Acts, but a bus conductor is not, and there are all sorts of distinctions like that. We also welcome the Bill because we feel it will be useful to some manual workers who have bank accounts or who want to open bank accounts and make use of the Bill's provisions.
On the other hand, we have had, and still have, some concern about the way in which the Bill could be misused by bad employers. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that we should not assume that employers will act in an unreasonable way. We do not assume that, but there are good, bad and indifferent employers, and some may be tempted to put pressure on their workers to suit their own convenience in the payment of wages. The Bill has been improved in some respects in dealing with that aspect.
We on this side of the House are entitled to claim some credit in having thought of all the good ideas, and the Government deserve credit for having accepted some of them. We are glad particularly about two points. One is the Amendment to Clause 5 which, as it now

stands, enables workpeople to use an agent to act on their behalf. We are concerned here very largely to see that the trade union movement plays its full part in implementing the Bill. The Bill has been strengthened on this point and that is a good thing. We were also glad to see that the voluntary principle in Clause 1 has been extended to what has been called emergency cases in Clause 4.
I make two comments about the way in which the Bill will work in practice. If and when the practice of paying wages by these various methods, particularly payment by cheque, becomes widespread, much extra work will be put on the banks. We must recognise that the banking system, since the ending of the credit squeeze, has been under heavy pressure. Staffs are busy and many are working long hours. When the Bill comes into effect it will increase their work further.
We understand that the right hon. Gentleman is to hold discussions with the banks about the practical effect of the Measure. He will do this particularly with regard to the fact that whereas payment by postal orders or payment into a banking account will come into force six months after the Bill becomes an Act, payment by cheque will not do so until he makes a Regulation to that effect. I take this opportunity, once again, to urge on him that consultations with the banking profession should include consultations with the National Union of Bank Employees.
This is a matter to which we attach very great importance. Our attempt to write in an Amendment failed; I cannot return to that, but the Minister can in the implementation of the Bill, and in the consultations he can make sure that he brings in the only genuine trade union in banking. This is something which we have warned him will be the subject of Questions from time to time. We urge him to take this opportunity to make the Bill work better by bringing bank staffs into consultation with his Department.
Our other concern is that the option in the Bill shall be genuine. The Bill gives the employee the right to make the decision, the right to take the initiative, about which way he wants his wages to be paid, but what will matter in the last analysis is not what the Bill says, but


what it is understood to say by the workpeople and by their employers. There is a threefold operation to be carried out. Employers' organisations should be circulating their member firms to stress the importance of making this a genuinely voluntary matter. They should remind member firms that, as the Minister has just pointed out, it will be a breach of the Truck Acts if pressure is put upon the worker in a way which the Bill does not allow, particularly a breach of Clause 6 (7) if he makes it a condition of employment. If an employer were guilty of that breach, he could be sued for the payment of the wages all over again. It is important that that sanction should be known.
It is probably very important that the National Farmers' Union should make that known to its members. No one is suggesting that most farmers want to behave unreasonably, but the odd unreasonable person in the countryside in many ways has more power in that his workers may be living in tied cottages of which the farmer is the landlord, so that there is extra scope for unfair pressure, which is a particular reason why it should be pointed out that there is a sanction in the background.
This is also a job for the trade unions. I hope that the trade unions will circulate their full-time officials' and branch secretaries pointing out the voluntary nature of the Bill, so that they can advise members of their rights and be alert and vigilant about any case of an employer acting against the letter and the spirit of the Bill.
Thirdly, this is a job for the Government. We were all glad to hear what the Minister said about the need for explanatory leaflets. I hope that those leaflets will be clear and simple and will not contain too much jargon and will emphasise strongly and clearly the voluntary nature of the Bill. Those are the points which should be emphasised.
To repeat them, they are that the initiative shall come from the employee in all cases; secondly, that the employee has the choice of having his wages paid in cash, or by money order, postal order,

by cheque, or into his bank account. Here I point out that it is perhaps unfortunate that the Bill has become known as the "Cheque Bill". It provides for payment of wages by cheque, but it also provides for alternative methods of paying wages. Most people who want to change will probably find that the most convenient alternative will be to have their wages paid into a bank account. There will be no advantage in having a cheque and then having to get it cashed.
I hope that it will be clearly pointed out that employees can choose to have part of their wages paid in that way and part by cash. That is an important alternative which needs to be widely known. It should also be emphasised that employees have the free choice of the bank and the branch of the bank, and that if the employer wants them to have their wages paid into his bank, they need not agree. Finally, it is illegal for employers to make it a condition of employment that people should take their wages in this way, and I hope that the literature which the Minister mentioned will emphasise that.
I sum up by saying that on this side of the House we regard this as a useful Bill which will extend the liberty of people to have their wages paid in the way they want, but it has its dangers and it is very important that everybody concerned with it should be vigilant about those dangers and see that we do not restrict the liberty of some people while enlarging that of others.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Hon. Members on this side of the House cannot let the occasion pass without congratulating my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for piloting the Bill through so smoothly and for meeting suggestions from both sides of the House. We are very grateful for my right hon. Friend's acceptance of Amendments which we have suggested and we believe that he has produced a very good Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The sole purpose of the Bill is to make new provision, in particular by enabling a statutory board to be set up, for the administration of the bacteriological service which the Minister of Health provides for England and Wales under Section 17 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and which is known as the Public Health Laboratory Service.
For reasons related to its origin, the Service is at present administered for the Ministry of Health by the Medical Research Council, assisted by a board of the Council's own appointing and with no legal status. This agency arrangement was never intended to be permanent and in the last few years, for a variety of reasons, it has become increasingly inconvenient.
Immediately before and during the last war, the Medical Research Council, at the request of the Committee of Imperial Defence, developed and operated an Emergency Public Health Laboratory Service for England and Wales. This Emergency Service was envisaged as providing a defence against possible enemy use of bacteriological warfare and against any major outbreaks of epidemic diseases arising from war-time conditions, including large movements of population and disruption of normal sanitary services.
In the event, the Service was not called upon to deal with any major emergency due to the war. On the other hand, it came to be used by medical officers of health as a very valuable aid to their ordinary work such as had not previously been available, except in the areas of some of the larger local authorities. The main reason for creating such an emergency service had, indeed, been the inadequacy of the pre-war arrangements for the bacteriological work required for public health purposes, particularly in the vulnerable southern part of England.
In the light of this experience, it was decided to maintain the Service after the

war as part of the regular machinery for the diagnosis and control of infectious diseases. Power to provide such a bacteriological service was given by the National Health Service Act, 1946, as I have already mentioned. In view of its earlier association with the project, the Medical Research Council agreed to continue to administer the Service during an initial period of five years. In so doing, it acted as agent for the Minister of Health outside its ordinary functions, for which it is responsible to the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research.
The primary function of the Service is to undertake bacteriological and viro-logical examinations for the assistance of local public health authorities in the control of infectious diseases. The work consists in part of the examination of specimens from human subjects suffering from infectious diseases, or suspected of having been exposed to infection. For the rest, it consists of examination of so-called sanitary specimens, namely, samples of water, milk, foodstuffs and other materials which may be the sources of infection.
A major feature of the work of the laboratories has been the availability of the bacteriologists to go into the field to assist medical officers of health in the investigation of outbreaks. Although the laboratory methods used are largely the same as those of hospital bacteriological laboratories, the aim of the work is quite different. It is concerned with the control of infection in the population at large and not with the treatment of the individual patient, so that its field is in the community and not in the wards of hospitals.
Unlike the hospital laboratory services, the Public Health Laboratory Service is organised on a national, and not on a regional or hospital basis, for the whole of England and Wales. Infectious diseases observe no administrative boundaries, and an outbreak often has to be traced from one area or region to another. There is also facility in reinforcing one laboratory with staff from another in times of local stress. Furthermore, when epidemics occur it is important to have a national intelligence network. In this connection there is a frequent and continuing liaison with the appropriate medical division of the Ministry of Health.
The Service thus comes under a single director with an office in London and it includes a Central Public Health Laboratory at Colindale with specialised departments to which reference can be made in matters of special difficulty by the regional and area laboratories throughout the country and which are also able to undertake intensive research on particular problems.
Although organised on a national basis, the constituent units of the Public Health Laboratory Service work in close touch with the hospital laboratories in their areas. The policy is to site public health laboratories in or near hospitals, and, where appropriate and convenient, to provide joint laboratories in which the public health bacteriologist and the hospital bacteriologist work side by side and share various facilities. Where there is no hospital bacteriologist, the public health laboratory may undertake the relevant hospital work. This arises particularly in the smaller hospitals where the sole pathologist may be a specialist in morbid anatomy or chemical pathology. This tendency seems likely to develop, but at least from the public health point of view the advantages of a national rather than a regional bacteriological service still remain. The Public Health Laboratory Service at present consists of the Central Public Health Laboratory, eight regional laboratories and fifty-one area laboratories. There are also several special reference laboratories, some included in the Central Public Health Laboratory, but some placed in other institutions. The Service is considered now to be fully developed and no increase in the number of public health laboratories is envisaged. The staff of the Public Health Laboratory Service numbers about 1,068 of whom 126 are medically qualified. Scales of pay are equated to those of the hospital service.
The cost of the Service is £1,212,000, and this is provided in the Civil Estimates for 1959–60 to cover the salaries and running expenses of the Service, including the cost of the purchase, testing and issue on behalf of the Minister of Health of certain immunological preparations distributed through the laboratories. An additional £50,000 is provided for capital expenditure on buildings.
On the expiry of the initial post-war period of five years, the Medical Research Council agreed to continue its agency administration of the Public Health Laboratory Service for a further term. At the same time, owing to the growing pressure of its ordinary work, the Council found it necessary to delegate this agency function almost entirely to a Public Health Laboratory Service Board which it appointed for the purpose, including officers of the Ministry of Health. The executive work remained in the hands of the Council's headquarters staff.
This agency arrangement was still regarded as temporary, and more recently the Council has been anxious to divest itself of the responsibility entirely, for the following reasons. The work of the Public Health Laboratory Service is peripheral to the Council's interests; although scientific it is largely routine and includes research only as a secondary function. There is inconvenience in the anomaly that the Council is in this matter responsible to the Minister of Health, whereas in respect of its normal functions it is responsible to the Committee of Privy Council for Medical Research. It is embarrassing for the Council to be the employer of two staffs paid by different standards and subject to different conditions. The ordinary work of the Council and of its headquarters staff has continued to grow, so that it has become expedient for the Public Health Laboratory Service to be given its own administrative machinery as soon as practicable.
The object of the Bill is therefore to enable the Minister of Health to administer the Service through a new Public Health Laboratory Service Board which he will appoint. This Board will exist as a separate entity, with legal status, not possessed, or attainable, by the present Board assisting the Council, enabling it to employ staff and hold property in its own name. This body, in a general way, will be analogous to a regional hospital board, that is to say, it will administer the Service as the agent of the Minister of Health, it will be appointed by him, and its staff will not be civil servants. It will be subject to the directions of the Minister of Health, whose control of the Public Health Laboratory Service will thus remain


much as at present. No significant additional expenditure is involved, as the cost of administration by a separate staff should be largely offset by saving the payment at present made to the Medical Research Council for the performance of this function by its own staff.
Very briefly the main provisions of the Bill are as follows. Clause 1 constitutes a Public Health Laboratory Service Board, to administer the Service as the Minister of Health may determine and under his direction. The Board is empowered to appoint staff, and to pay expenses to its own members. The Minister will provide premises for their needs under Section 17 of the 1946 Act.
Clause 2 transfers the staff of the Public Health Laboratory Service, other than certain headquarters staff, from the employment of the Medical Research Council to that of the new Board. Contingent provision is made for the payment of compensation for loss of employment or emolument, but it is in fact thought unlikely that this will be required.
Clause 3 transfers from the Medical Research Council to the Minister of Health property held for the purpose of the Public Health Laboratory Service. The Board itself, however, is empowered in paragraph 2 to the Schedule of the Bill to accept and hold on trust property for the purpose of these functions.
Clause 4 provides for the cost of the Public Health Laboratory Service to continue to be met by the Exchequer. Provision is made in respect of accounts and audit in the usual form and continuing the practice followed under the existing arrangements.
The Schedule provides for the Board to be a body corporate and to be able to accept and hold property on trust for the purposes of the Public Health Laboratory Service or otherwise connected with bacteriological research.
The members of the Board, all appointed by the Minister of Health, are to be a chairman and such other members as the Minister thinks fit, including two members appointed after consultation with the Medical Research Council, two bacteriologists, two medical officers of health, a person representing the hospital service, and a general practitioner.
I might perhaps explain that the representation on the Board was changed from that in the original draft of the Bill following representations made in another place by Lord Taylor who felt that it was not essential that the chairman should be of the medical profession, as was at first envisaged, and that the hospital service, which would be calling on this new Board, should be represented. Amendments to that effect were accepted in another place.
The position now is that we are asking the House to provide permanent machinery for a Public Health Laboratory Service. I hope that the House will accept the Bill.

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, the purposes of which the hon. Lady has described with commendable clarity and brevity, which I will try to emulate.
It is a small but by no means unimportant Bill. It is non-controversial in the party sense. It comes to us from another place, where the Second Reading debate was notable for a speech which I can only describe as fascinating from my noble Friend Lord Taylor, in which he surveyed the achievements of the Public Health Laboratory Service and the very wide range of its activities. Those of us who are in any way associated with the National Health Service know what excellent work the Laboratory Service has done since it came into being, almost accidentally, at the beginning of the war. It has done its work very unobtrusively, and research has discovered that in the whole twenty years of its existence it has only once been the subject of a Parliamentary Question—and that was a Question for Written Answer. There is probably a moral somewhere in that, but I hesitate to draw it.
I echo the tribute paid by my noble Friend in another place to Sir Wilson Jameson, who was the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry at the time of the inception of this Service, and who did more than anyone to bring it into being, and to Dr. Wilson, who has been the director of the Service since its inception.
Hon. Members on this side of the House agree that the time has come to bring to an end the temporary and somewhat fortuitous arrangements for this


Service, and to give it a new structure. Had the Minister wished to do so he could have integrated the Service into the regional board system. It would have fitted into it in the same way as the blood transfusion service has now become part of the regional board system. On second thoughts, however, I believe that, on balance, this method of changing the structure is the right one. It is better for the Service to be under its own statutory board. As the hon. Lady said, the composition of the Board has been changed since the Bill was first drafted—and in my view it has been very much improved—as a result of the suggestions made by my noble Friend.
The hon. Lady said that the pay and conditions of the staff has been equated with those of the hospital service. I hope that I am right in assuming that that position will continue, because it is highly desirable that it should.
The hon. Lady did what her noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, did when he introduced the Bill in another place— wearing his Minister for Science hat at the time, I assume; she said that research was very much a secondary function of this Service. I thought that she and her noble Friend both tended to minimise this function. In terms of the expenditure of time it takes up about 25 per cent. of the Service's work. About 75 per cent. of its work is routine. Research is probably the most important part of its work, because it is doing things which no other body in Britain is doing, and in some cases work which probably no other body in the world is doing.
We feel that this research must be encouraged. If it is encouraged, and finance is generously provided by the Minister, the work of the Service should grow, and the organisation should grow with it, despite what the Minister said about its having now reached its maximum size. There is a great deal of work still to be done in this field. The Public Health Laboratory Service has shown itself to be admirably fitted to do this work in the past, and we hope that it will go on and extend its activities. From this side we wish it well in its new guise.

6.43 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: If I am brief in my remarks I hope that you will understand my

reasons, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and not hold it against me. Like other hon. Members I could speak at some length on this subject, but it is not necessary to do so. All I would say is that this Service, with very little money, has given us a unique position in the world in bacteriological research. It is a network, with a national centre, spread throughout the country and ready at any moment to assist local authorities, general practitioners or hospitals. It is available at all times, and for very little expense.
It costs £1¼ million per annum for this Service, which is roughly the cost of firing one rocket into outer space. It is interesting to think that at very reasonable cost we can protect ourselves against a very serious enemy which constantly attacks us, and against whom we always have to be on guard. We can use the Service to prevent disease rather than wait too long and then have to attempt to cure it, when it is often rather late.
My principal reason for rising is to say that Stoke-on-Trent owes a debt of gratitude to the Service for the fragment of research it did when, in 1957, there was a catastrophe in the North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary. A number of patients in operating theatres became infected with tetanus as a result of being operated on, and there were one or two fatal cases. This Service was brought in to discover why this dreadful thing had happened. It carried out a countrywide sample investigation of dressings used in operating theatres, to see whether any of them were contaminated with the spores of the normal organism of tetanus, and it was able to demonstrate beyond doubt that unbleached cotton wool, as it is or made up in bandages, sometimes contains the tetanus organism. From this fact it deduced that under no circumstances must any unsterilised dressings be allowed to enter an operating theatre. Stoke-on-Trent is very grateful to it for the work it then did, and I believe that the country as a whole is also grateful.
I also read the fascinating contribution made by Lord Taylor in the Second Reading debate in another place. We who knew him as the hon. Member for Barnet are not surprised that he found this Service of great interest. He objected very strongly to the Long Title of the Bill, which refers to "the bacteriological


service". He preferred it to be called a "microbiological" service, and I sympathise with him, for the Laboratory Service carries out research on infestation by worms, and it is interested in fungi as well as in viruses, and the word "bacteriological" is, therefore, perhaps too narrow. However, I doubt whether any of the abominable "No-men" that Lord Taylor spoke of, who sit on committees and say "No" to anything outside their terms of reference, will ever exist on the kind of board that we envisage the Minister appointing under the Bill.
Our proceedings here are not as leisurely as they are in another place that we wot of, and I shall not say much more. Before I sit down, however, I would say that I am delighted to see that the Minister is to appoint not only representatives of the general hospital service but a representative of the general practitioner service, for that service exists to help him, and it is right that it should have a representative on the Board who can state the requirements of men in general practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to establish a Public Health Laboratory Service Board for the exercise of functions with respect to the administration of the bacteriological service provided by the Minister of Health under section seventeen of the National Health Service Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenditure of the Board incurred with the approval of the Minister and of compensation to persons employed as officers or servants of the Medical Research Council who suffer loss of employment or diminution of emoluments

which is attributable to the passing of the said Act of this Session; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Board.—[Miss Pitt.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of West Penwith, [copy laid before the House, 22nd March], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Windermere, [a copy laid before the House, 22nd March], approved.—[Mr. Vosper.]

Mr. Speaker: I suspend Che Sitting until seven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

7.0 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the present state of Northern Ireland; deplores the continuance of armed raids across the United Kingdom border; views with concern the continuing high level of unemployment; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to continue their contacts and strengthen their support of the Government of Northern Ireland in their efforts to attract new industries and to ensure stable conditions in industry and agriculture.
It was an odd decision of the Ballot which decreed that we should have a debate on Northern Ireland just now, because there are two coincidences involved. The first is that just about the time the Ballot was taken we hon. Members who represent constituencies in Ulster had been pressing my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as Leader of the House, for a debate on Ulster affairs in Government time. My right hon. Friend pointed out that there was always a chance of being successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. That says a lot, when one couples that with my right hon. Friend's recent success at the Grand National, for his clairvoyance in the matter.
I wish to make one point about that. We feel strongly that there should be an annual debate on Northern Ireland and that it should take place in the early part of each Session. I hope that my right hon. Friend will either use his psychic powers to see that we are successful in the Ballot from time to time or will provide the necessary Government time.
There is another and rather more interesting coincidence about our success in the Ballot at this time. In fact, on this day, 30th March, forty years ago, this House was engaged in debating the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Act—the Act which brought into being the political entity of Northern Ireland about which we are going to talk now. Having read the report of that debate and looking back over forty years and remembering just what Ireland looked like then—remembering the deep-seated, bitter, vicious, violent, sectarian hatred and the assassinations, murders, bloodshed and violence of those days—can there be many who know Ireland well who would not consider in their heart of hearts, whatever side they were on, that the influence of that great Statute of forty years ago has, on the whole, been benign upon Irish affairs?
However, it will be observed that the Motion is not directed to the past but to the present—and the future. It is, I suppose, a national failing of Irishmen that they find it almost constitutionally impossible to discuss a present issue without going back to history. An Irishman—or a Scotsman—is as addicted to history as is an opium smoker to his pipe. I propose to resist that national characteristic, if I can, and come to the main terms of the Motion, but it would not be proper to have a debate on Northern Ireland affairs without looking, for a moment at any rate at a curious survival of that spirit of violence, a curious anachronism, a curious echo from those old days. I refer, of course, to what we indicate in our Motion as
the continuance of armed raids across the United Kingdom border.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) will be telling the House something of what it has cost us in Ulster; something of the squalid and

irritating nuisance the thing has been; something of the loss of life; something of the cost in time and money to many of us. I will simply content myself with making one or two observations about it.
I think it important to realise that, as a campaign, it has been a dismal failure. First, it has not had the broad support of the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland, and, secondly, it has been condemned by the Christian Churches. Thirdly, the Unionist majority has been calm and steady, and throughout the whole campaign there has not been one single act of reprisal. Therefore, the picture is not as someone reading casually the odd report of an incident from time to time might suppose. It is not a picture of widespread civil disturbance. It is not a picture which ought in any way to deter any man who is thinking of investing capital in Ulster. No man who is thinking of making an industrial investment in Ulster need be in the least bit afraid that his capital investment will be in any jeopardy. In point of fact capital invested in Ulster is safer than it might be in Notting Hill, in Trafalgar Square, or even were it left in the banks in London.
I come now to what is, in fact, the main purpose of our Motion—

Mr. Thomas Oswald: And about time too.

Captain Orr: It is to draw attention once again to the serious unemployment problem which we have. That is our main purpose. I think that the hon. Member who said, "About time too" is really being a little less than fair.

Mr. Oswald: On the contrary.

Captain Orr: I have been in this House for ten years and in every single year, in every single Session of Parliament, I remember that this House has been told something about the serious position regarding unemployment in Northern Ireland.
I remember, back in 1952, drawing the attention of the House to the main ingredients of the problem. I remember pointing out then what were the principal factors in it, and that will be recollected by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I remember saying that there was a lack of indigenous


power that we had to bring our coal from across the sea. I referred to our dependence on certain basic industries, our very precarious dependence on agriculture, on linen and on shipbuilding and how especially vulnerable was Northern Ireland to the continuing rise in the cost of transport. I did not then add—it has been added since—that there is the additional hazard that we have the highest birth rate in the United Kingdom. Anyone who has taken an interest in Northern Ireland will know all this well enough.
It is somewhat frustrating to have to go on repeating the argument year after year. The main ingredients of the problem are still with us. It is true that our industry has been substantially diversified, that we are not, perhaps, so dependent on the three basic industries as we were. But they are still very important to us, and any major trouble or recession in either of these three industries would hit us catastrophically.
A great deal has been done in those ten years, a very great deal. It would be wrong not to acknowledge what has been done. Since the war, £42½ million has been spent by the Northern Ireland Government on attracting industry to Ulster and jobs for 38,000 people have been provided. In those ten years, since I first came into the House, 73 new factories have been set up in Northern Ireland, nine of which have subsequently been expanded, 47 of the old undertakings have been expanded and, in the same period, jobs have been found through the medium of those undertakings for 22,000 people. The hopeful thing about that is that two-thirds of those jobs are for male workers. Last year there were 3,000 jobs provided and, from announcements of present intentions by other new undertakings, it looks as though we shall have jobs for a further 3,000.
Our industry has been considerably diversified. Instead of three basic industries, we now have the aircraft industry, accounting machines, shoes, nylon stockings, and so on. In addition, the Northern Ireland Government recently announced a policy of building advance factories for very small undertakings. They are designed to employ forty or fifty people each, and it is hoped that they will attract people with not so

large capital as those who have started bigger undertakings. There is no doubt that this has been a very great achievement. I am sure that hon. Members who have experience of unemployment in other places—

Mr. James Dempsey: In Scotland.

Captain Orr: Perhaps in Scotland— will agree that a great deal has been done by the Northern Ireland Government, no doubt with assistance from the Treasury here. It would be wrong to underrate that.
At the same time, the tragedy is that there seems to be a sort of "Parkinson's Law" operating in Ulster. The number of unemployed appears to rise in direct ratio with the number of jobs provided. We are rather in the position of Alice in "Through the Looking Glass". After a tremendous race hand in hand with the Red Queen, exhausted she sat down, only to find that she was exactly where she was when she started. When she complained to the Red Queen, the Red Queen said, "Well, in Looking Glass Land you don't run to get somewhere. You have to run very hard to stay where you are." Prodigious efforts have been made in Ulster, but the unemployment figures appear to be very nearly as bad as ever. The present rate of unemployment there is 7·6 per cent. of the insured population. By any standard, that is far too high. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from that.

Mr. Dempsey: Tory government.

Captain Orr: The conclusion to be drawn is that the rate of development is simply not fast enough and something has got to be done about it. There is need for an agonising reappraisal of the whole situation.
Before I come to the various suggestions which have been made—and we have not lacked advice—I wish to deal with two broad aspects which affect overall Government policy. Ulster is peculiarly susceptible and vulnerable to changes in United Kingdom economic policy. She is peculiarly susceptible to the winds of economic fortune. There have been one or two occasions during those last ten years when we thought that we were within an ace of curing the evil and when we thought that the solution to the problem was almost in sight.


One was in 1950–51 when we appeared to be getting on top of the problem. Then there came the great textile recession which hit our linen industry. The other was about 1955 when again we looked like solving the problem. Indeed, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Advisory Development Council, Lord Chandos, was of the opinion that the back of the problem could be broken in two weeks. I remember that statement. There appeared at that time a reasonable chance of solution, but then there came the necessity for restriction of credit in 1957–58 and that hit us very hard.
The point I want to make is that it is a reasonable request to make to the Government that if at any time it becomes necessary to restrict credit or to take measures to deal with a possibly developing inflation, the Government, before they do anything else, should look at the possible effects that it might have not only upon Ulster but on other parts of our community where unemployment is chronically high. If necessary, measures should be taken to insulate such areas from the worst effects of the policy. It is not that we are in any way reluctant to bear our full share and burden of anything that may be placed on the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is that we do not want to bear an unfair burden. We do not want to bear more than our fair share, which certainly falls upon us when this sort of thing happens.
One other general point I want to make is in connection with the present Local Employment Act and its operation. The Government are about to extend to a number of areas which they have scheduled many of the advantages that we have had exclusively, in Ulster. We make this request to the Government, that if, for instance, a company seeking to expand is refused an industrial development certificate in London, Coventry or somewhere else and its attention is directed to other places, those places shall be put to it by the Board of Trade in the order of the seriousness of the unemployment figures. As will readily be seen, at the moment Northern Ireland is at the head of the list.
We hope that if there is any great industry which the Government know is

seeking expansion the Government, as soon as they know that, will see that steps are taken by the Board of Trade to inform the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce straight away. We acknowledge the help and advice which has been given us by the Board of Trade. The Northern Ireland Government tell me that they warmly welcome what the Board of Trade has already done for them and that relations are cordial. I hope that they will remain cordial.
Let us examine some of the suggestions which have been made. As I have said, we have not lacked advice. We have had the advice of Members of the Northern Ireland Parliament, of Ministers, of every political party, of trade unions, of committees, of university professors and of students. We have in no way lacked advice, and it is impossible in a short speech to go into all the suggestions which have been made. I should like to take what seem to me to be the more substantial points put forward.
First, it has seemed odd for some time to many people that the great Port of Belfast, with Harland and Wolff, the largest shipyard in the world, should not have ship-repairing facilities and a large dry dock. This proposition has been put forward before. I believe that the right hon. Member for Blyth mentioned it some time ago.

Mr. Alfred Robens: In 1954.

Captain Orr: My colleagues and I in the House have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe for that to be looked at seriously again. It must be remembered that four parties are involved—the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Harland and Wolff, the Northern Ireland Government and the Treasury here. We think that the provision of such a dry dock would be of value to Harland and Wolff in seeking to attract orders.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: What have the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his colleagues been doing since 1954 to get the Government to do something about this? He asks them to look at the proposal again now, but I understand that the employment figure in Northern Ireland has been high for many years. What have hon. Members opposite been doing about this proposal?

Captain Orr: I think that perhaps the best method of dealing with interventions would be for the hon. Member to speak in the debate and make such points as he wishes to make and for one of my hon. Friends subsequently to deal with them.
This proposition was examined several years ago.

Mr. Mellish: By whom?

Captain Orr: By the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Harland and Wolff and the Ulster Government. It was then decided by the three parties, for whatever reasons obtained at that time, that this was not a good proposition. Since then the Ulster Government have said that if the Belfast Harbour Commissioners and Harland and Wolff between them put forward a scheme, the Ulster Government will look at it sympathetically.
The point I want to make in this debate is that this is a question of cash and that the British Treasury is involved. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary of State, that if such a scheme is put forward and is given the approval of the Ulster Government, it will not fail for want of Treasury support. I believe that it would be of inestimable value to Belfast, that it would provide work in building and continuing work and that it would also be of value to Harland and Wolff.
We are very anxious, too, about the future of our shipbuilding industry. A major recession in shipbuilding would be a catastrophe for Ulster. The firm of Harland and Wolff is beginning to get short of orders. Most of the great passenger liner companies have completed their post-war reconstruction schemes. Orders are beginning to get scarce. Competition from Continental shipyards is increasing. When the Government consider the Report of the Committee on the building of another Queen liner, or two more Queen liners, I ask them to consider the unique claims of Harland and Wolff. They are unique, not only because of the importance of the unemployment problem in Ireland but because Harland and Wolff, the largest shipyard in the world, already has a unique experience in the building of this type of passenger liner. Hon. Members

have only to think of the "Arcadia", the "Amazon", the "Southern Cross", the "Orcades" and, a fortnight ago, the "Canberra", the largest passenger liner built since the war, to realise that what I am saying is true. I believe that the firm of Harland and Wolff has a unique claim to build such a ship if the Government decide to finance it.
One of my hon. Friends who represents a Belfast division hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to deal with the aircraft industry in more detail, but I must point out that Short and Harland has been left out of the big mergers in the reorganisation of the aircraft industry. It is as yet too early to say whether that was a wise decision. Much depends on the Government's policy. We hope that the fact that Short and Harland has been left out does not mean that there will not be steady and continuing production there. It is a very important ingredient in our employment set-up.
The contract for the Britannic freighter has not yet been signed. We understand that it is possible to make all the plans for production and even to start production without the contract being signed, but there is no doubt that the fact that it has not yet been signed has created uneasiness among the workers in Short and Harland. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Robens: How does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that work on such a venture can start without the contract being signed?

Captain Orr: We are assured that it is possible to go to the extent even of cutting metal, but I agree that we ought to get the contract signed as soon as possible in the interests of everyone.
May I say a few words about agriculture? It is our largest industry and we are very dependent on it. It is a thriving, prosperous and efficient industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) hopes to make his maiden speech to the House on the subject of agriculture. He has had a long experience as a farmer and considerable experience as a prominent member of the Ulster Farmers' Union.
I will confine my remarks on agriculture to stating that we are very dependent on the industry and that there


is a certain uneasiness—certainly I have found it in my constituency—whether it is the Government's intention, in the face of European free trade, gradually to run down their support for agriculture. We should like an assurance that it is the Government's intention that our agriculture shall continue steady and prosperous.
I want next to deal with a subject ancillary to agriculture. A suggestion has often been made that we ought to develop some of the industries which are related to agriculture. The right hon. Member for Blyth and many others have made the point from time to time that, for instance, we ought to develop our dead meat industry and that, rather than export cattle on the hoof, we should export dead meat.
The trouble about that is that we are up against hard economic facts. Only last weekend I heard of an example. A leading Ulster farmer, a man who had taken a great part in the Ulster Farmers' Union and a man of substance and ability, got together a few other farmers and industrialists and made a determined effort to see whether they could not start a company to do this very thing. They went to the Midlands and to the north of England and found a ready market. They got some indication as to price, and carefully costed the whole operation right back to the beginning, taking into account transport, overheads and so on. Even allowing for the bare minimum of profit margin, they came to the conclusion that the price which they could offer to the farmer simply would not justify the operation. It might have justified it for a month or two in the year, but no one could start a business on that basis. We are up against economic facts, and I do not know that there is any great future in that idea for the solving of our unemployment problem.
I want to deal with one other matter which has been widely canvassed in Ulster, particularly by the party opposite. I should like to assure hon. Members opposite that what I have to say about this is not animated by any doctrinaire prejudice. We in Ulster are not too proud or too party-politically-minded to take advice from any quarter if we think there is anything in it, and if we

think it will provide one more job for the unemployed in Northern Ireland.
This is a question whether the Northern Ireland Development Council should be abolished in favour of a full-scale statutory development corporation. This suggestion has been canvassed for some time. As I understand it, what would be proposed would be that we should have a statutory body with powers and with the backing of both Governments, here and at Stormont, with its own administrative and technical staff, with a full-time chairman, and with a provision of capital, it has been suggested, of about £25 million or £30 million.
It is suggested that this corporation should have power to issue shares or to take shares in companies, even to take control of companies if it were necessary, to make loans and to finance public works. The argument, as I understand it, is that it would make more capital available, and, in particular, attract such Northern Ireland capital as is at present invested outside Northern Ireland. I have heard it said that £650 million of Northern Ireland capital is invested outside and that if there were a body of this sort it would be invested at home.
I have tried to examine that as fairly and objectively as I can, but I cannot see what it would do for our unemployment problem that is not already done. If it is a question of attracting industry, of exciting the interest of industrialists, of advertising and propaganda, I cannot see what such a body could do that has not already been done by the Northern Ireland Development Council. If we argue that the Development Council does not do enough, it simply means that the Development Council needs more money.

Mr. Mellish: Or more power?

Captain Orr: I do not think it is a question of power. I think it has all the power it wants in that direction. If it is a question of dealing with new industries in Ulster and of making grants and loans where necessary, I cannot see what such a corporation would do that is not already done by the Ulster Minister of Finance, and particularly by the New Industries Department of the Ministry of Commerce. If it is a question of public works, I cannot see that it would be better to have public works financed


by such a corporation than to have them financed through the medium of a Government Department or a local authority. I think we get better public control in the latter way. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that there is not very much to be said for a change in that machinery.
This brings me to the very kernel of the problem. I do not believe—and the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance is on record as agreeing with this—that the real problem is capital. It is now an accepted proposition by all Governments that in order to spread employment throughout the country they should use public money. We should use the device of preventing development in places where it is not needed and should use public money to attract industry to those places where it is needed. I am not sure that we are using the right method of spending public money.
Attention has so far been directed entirely to capital, but what we in Ulster want is not necessarily the man who is short of capital to start an industry. The people we want to attract to areas where there is chronic unemployment are people who are contemplating expansion on a long-term basis. They are the bigger public companies with plenty of resources behind them, which are capable of withstanding a down-turn in our economic affairs and of standing up to periodic slumps. What we do not want to see are little factories starting up with little behind them which, when we get a recession, close down, with the bitterness and disappointment which that causes.
We want to see the big companies coming to Northern Ireland. The average big company is not short of capital. It has its own capital resources, and it has the ability to raise money on the Stock Exchange and by loans from the bank. What the big industrialist looks for is something long-term. He is not concerned with merely getting his capital back, but with being able to stay there for ten years or more.
What we ought to direct our attention to, and what I should like the Government seriously to consider, is that we should seek the incentive to industry— and this applies not only to Ulster but to every other place where there is unemployment—in the realm of taxation.

The point has been conceded with regard to Malta, and a taxation incentive has already been proposed to attract industry to Malta. I should like to see it applied throughout the United Kingdom where unemployment is serious, and particularly to see it applied to Northern Ireland. I believe that if there were an allowance against taxation for, say, a period of ten years, that would be a greater attraction than any capital inducement, and I look to the Government to consider that point.
Many suggestions have been made and points raised. I know that many of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite would like to speak in this debate, and we should like to hear as many views as possible. Therefore, I will come now to one suggestion which I think ought to be seriously looked at. I have heard it suggested that we ought to have a Minister for Northern Ireland Affairs, and that that, in some way, would help us. I personally do not think that that is the sort of new machinery that we require, because I think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is, in effect, Minister for Northern Ireland affairs. I do not see that any one new Minister could do anything more than my right hon. Friend does at present. We acknowledge warmly his continuing interest in Ulster and his concern about us. I think that some new machinery is now needed, and that that machinery ought to take the form of some sort of joint Ministerial committee. It would meet, in the first instance, to make a reappraisal, a review, of the whole situation, and it would continue as a permanent organisation, meeting from time to time to review what is being done.
I should like such a joint committee to consist of my right hon. Friend in the chair, the Minister of Transport, the President of the Board of Trade, and a Treasury Minister, on the one side. On the other side I should like the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance, the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce and perhaps the two Ministers of Agriculture on either side. I believe that such a joint committee is the right sort of machinery for producing the reappraisal of our situation which we want, and I believe that meeting from time to time it could look into all these problems.
One wants to look at the constitution and relationship. One wants to try to


deal with the curious fiction of the Imperial contribution. One wants to look at our transport problem all over again. One wants to look at the cost of our coal all over again. One wants to look at the matters which I have already discussed.
It may have appeared to the House as if Ulster were a poor relation, coming here pleading for help from Ministers and from the Treasury. That is not the case. We have had to lay emphasis upon our difficulties. We have had to lay emphasis upon our serious employment problem, because it is by far the most urgent and the most necessary. It must not be forgotten that we are far from being a poor relation. We have much to contribute to the economic life of this country. Our export trade in textiles, shipbuilding and aircraft, contribute to the economic life of this country. Our agriculture helps to supply the larders of this country. We feel that we have much to contribute.
We feel that we have a right to say that, as it is now the Government's policy to spread employment in this country, we have the first claim on their attention. Our problem is the worst, and we confidently call upon the Government to tackle it. If something new is done, if a new approach is made now, we shall be well satisfied with this debate.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I beg to second the Motion.
I heartily support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in all that he has said about Northern Ireland. I know that I may, by tradition, count upon your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House on this memorable occasion of my maiden speech.
Before going on to speak about agriculture in Northern Ireland and the effects of the recent Farm Price Review, I should like to take a few moments to introduce myself to the House. I represent one of the most important, if not the most important, constituencies in the United Kingdom, Armagh. The City of Armagh is the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland, and the County of Armagh is commonly known as "The Garden of Ireland". In

its famous orchards, nine-tenths of all Irish apples are grown, along with considerable quantities of soft fruits. Although largely agricultural, there are many other industries, including linen, pottery, carpet making, furniture and engineering.
I am deeply interested in the welfare of all the industries in my constituency and the hard-working people engaged therein, but, as I intimated at the beginning of my remarks, I will now proceed to deal with Northern Ireland agriculture in general. As my hon. and gallant Friend stated, agriculture is the largest single industry in Northern Ireland and, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, the recent Farm Price Review has caused considerable comment. The biggest talking point is the cut in the guaranteed price for eggs.
At first sight, the estimated loss to poultry keepers in Northern Ireland is approximately £500,000, but when the alteration to the profit and loss sharing arrangements between the Government and the British Egg Marketing Board is taken into account, it may well be that poultry keepers will receive a better price for their eggs in 1960–61 than they did in 1959–60, despite the cut of 1·38 pence per dozen.
The announcement of this alteration by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture after the Price Review, and also when replying to the debate on the Supplementary Estimate for Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies, was not given the publicity it deserved. I hope that on future occasions such an important announcement as this will be widely publicised in all Northern Ireland newspapers. Many egg producers are still unaware of the new arrangements and may be criticising the Farmers' Union unjustly.
While welcoming this important change, I do not agree that the present guaranteed price is adequate. Poultry keepers in Northern Ireland have been steadily reducing their flocks. In December, 1959, the number of birds fell by almost 1 million compared with the 1958 figure. Since the announcement of the recent cut, orders for day-old chicks have been steadily decreasing. It is almost certain that there will be a shortage of eggs this year, resulting in


higher prices and a consequent increase in the cost of living index.
The reduction in production grants will mean a considerable increase in the cost of fertilisers and lime. This will be partly offset by a reduction in the prices now operating for these fertilisers. The net result may well be a restriction in their use, and a consequent lowering of yields. The cut in grain subsidies, amounting to £40,000, while not a severe one, could lead to a further reduction in the area under the plough. The cut in the prices for fleece wool sheep and lambs is a double blow and will amount to between £50,000 and £65,000. Sheep farmers in Ulster are bound to feel discouraged at receiving the full force of the axe in all three commodities at once.
I should like now to ask my right hon. Friend a direct question. Could he not have spread the burden over more than one Price Review? While recognising that the Government have an obligation to protect taxpayers and consumers and that trade commitments have to be taken into account, I am still convinced that the amount by which the guarantee has been cut is not fully justified. It would require a considerable addition to the 1959–60 prices to keep the real income of the farmer comparable with the 1948 level.
One word is used in every Price Review which has become almost as famous as the House of Commons itself. It is the word "efficiency". Paragraph 6 of the White Paper says that
the Government assessed the industry's increasing efficiency at about £25 million for review commodities"—
that is, over the whole of the United Kingdom—
which represents a gain of about 2 per cent. per annum on gross output
Advantage is taken of this to reduce the amount of the total guarantee. The reduction for 1960–61, after taking into account the increased costs of the industry, is £9 million for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I am well aware that the reduction could have been £19 million, but I am still of the opinion that the efficiency estimate of 2 per cent. per annum may prove too high and that the farming community will find themselves in a less

favourable position financially than those engaged in other industries.
It is very difficult to explain to farmers why they suffer a reduction in guaranteed prices by becoming more efficient. Many of them feel that they are being treated like the children of Israel, who, at first, received straw from the Egyptians to make bricks, but, later, had to gather the straw themselves and still produce the same quantity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider issuing an explanatory leaflet on the subject.
Turning to the brighter side of the Review, Northern Ireland pig producers will benefit by £600,000. This is merely because Northern Ireland has a very high pig population. I welcome the new arrangements whereby the quality premium is now separated from the guarantee. Although the guaranteed price for milk is reduced by £100,000, this will be partly offset by the increase of a million gallons in the standard quantity; the net reduction to dairy farmers being in the region of £35,000.
I was particularly pleased to note that the Government have recognised the difficulties of potato growers by granting a small increase of 5s. 6d. a ton. I am also very pleased to see that the arrangement under which a transport subvention may be paid, and that the arrangements for the processing of surplus potatoes will be continued. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises that the potato growers in Northern Ireland, who produce the finest seed and ware potatoes obtainable anywhere in the world, are placed at a disadvantage by the regulations brought into force last year whereby the support price per ton was replaced by a guarantee to the industry. This had a serious effect on potato prices last season, and I would be very grateful if the Minister would look into the matter with a view to making some improvement in the present arrangements.
I note that prices for fat cattle will remain the same. An increase in the guaranteed price would have been welcomed, as the cost of producing beef has been steadily rising.
Farmers have to plough back a considerable amount of their profits, and if the Government persist in keeping farm profits too low it will inevitably lead to a contraction in the industry, which would


aggravate our already serious unemployment problem. I, along with other farmers, am grateful for the large measure of support given by the Government, and I am glad that they have undertaken to continue this support for at least the duration of the present Parliament.
I hope that my right hon. Friend and hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that the farmer has to work a seven-day week, and that he has to contend with all kinds of weather and disease which can completely rob him of his profit. He is doing a wonderful job for the nation, and I sincerely hope that he will always receive a just reward for his labours.
In all their dealings with Northern Ireland, I would ask the Government to bear in mind the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who, when he was Prime Minister, said:
But for the loyalty of Northern Ireland, the light which now shines throughout the world would have been quenched.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: It is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) on his maiden speech. It is clear from what he has said that he is a great authority on agriculture, and I am quite sure that when we have our agricultural debates, in particular, we shall look forward to his speeches with considerable interest. The House is always interested in speeches made by people who are authorities on their subjects, and I know that the hon. Gentleman would find himself quite at home and at ease in agricultural debates in this House.
I hope, however, that the Home Secretary, who has some responsibility for Northern Ireland, will put to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture the suggestion that together they might produce a short booklet on making bricks without straw. It might, at least, make entertaining reading.
I do not wish to take up much time, but it is important that we on this side of the House should say something about the very difficult problem that faces Northern Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made an interesting speech, but I hope

that he will not take it amiss if I say that I was rather disappointed. I thought that he would have devoted his speech to constructive suggestions and ideas for dealing with the very difficult problem that has been facing Northern Ireland for so many years, a problem that seems insoluble—the problem of high unemployment.
Instead of that, he proposed the setting up of another committee, which I do not think would gat him anywhere. I doubt very much whether Ministers of the Imperial Government could possibly find the time to attend any more meetings than they do at present. I doubt whether it would achieve very much, and I doubt very much if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would get very much from it.
He also wanted special Income Tax concessions for Ulster. I doubt whether the Government could look at that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and such a concession would mean similar concessions to other black spots in the United Kingdom where unemployment is just as high. It would blur the whole picture of the unemployment situation.
The solution really lies in Ulster itself, with, of course, the backing of this House and the Government of the day. The solution really does lie in Ulster. When I read the debate that took place on 15th March in the Northern Ireland Parliament I was, again, very disappointed. There, again, Ministers seemed not to have grasped the fact that what is wanted in Northern Ireland now is not a recital of what has happened over the years, not a paternal back-slapping operation over what has been accomplished, but a facing of the fact that unemployment will be solved only by taking brand-new initiatives, even though the Ulster Parliament and Government may doubt those initiatives at the present time. There was, at least, something in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said about his being prepared to look at any proposal, irrespective of any political bias, in an effort to solve the problem.
We must look at the size of the problem and put our ideas together in order jointly to try to solve what is not a political matter, in the sense that we all want to get rid of the areas of heavy unemployment in Great Britain or


Northern Ireland. Unemployment in Northern Ireland has now reached about 3·6 per cent., in comparison with the national average of 1·9 per cent., but I look at the other figures which show an even worse picture—the relationship of the numbers of people unemployed to the vacancies on the register.
It is remarkable and a little alarming to realise that in England, for every vacancy, there are two people unemployed; in Wales, there are four; in Scotland, there are ten, but in Northern Ireland there are forty-two people unemployed.
That is not the worst of the story, because about 5,000 people emigrate from Northern Ireland each year. Speaking in parenthesis, as it were, I would say that it is a bad thing to lose young manpower year after year to that extent. If it were not for that emigration, however, the figures would be altogether too terrible to contemplate.
This is a long-standing problem. There are special difficulties which all of us who have studied the question recognise. The hon. and gallant Member made some reference to them, but I shall not go over them again because I am quite sure that they are perfectly well known to everyone in this House.
There is the problem. What is the solution? The simplified solution is to find 20,000 brand-new jobs for Northern Ireland. That would take care of about 30,000 unemployed people, because new jobs in themselves begin to attract and make employment for others. How are we to get 20,000 new jobs? The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South indicated that, whilst a good deal had been done by the Development Council, by the Government and all sorts of interests, nevertheless new jobs have not been provided in sufficient numbers. In other words, the increase in the population must be taken care of at the same time as one deals with the problem of the present unemployed.
There is at the moment on Northern Ireland's plate one problem which can be met by two solutions only. One must be short-term and the other long-term, and I think it is important that the problems should be divided in this way. Short-term, the problem is clear. Northern Ireland already has its unemployment. It

is no use waiting for long-term solutions to a present-day problem. One must see what can be done about present-day problems. The present-day problem is not so much the amount of unemployment at the present time. There is anxiety in the minds of people in Ulster that the unemployment situation arising from the decline in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries will deteriorate rather than improve.
In Northern Ireland there are some of the finest shipbuilding facilities in the world. Belfast is noted througout the world as one of the great builders of ships over the years. For the quality of its craftsmanship and its ability to turn out good ships no one has to advertise Belfast. No one has to advertise Northern Ireland. That fact is accepted by ship owners throughout the world, and that is one thing in favour of Northern Ireland.
It was a pity that when in 1954 suggestions were made, with a good deal of publicity behind them, to build a dry dock, it was not started. To build a dry dock now will help in the years ahead, but it will not meet the immediate problem. "Canberra" was launched only the other week. Where will it go to be fitted out, and where will it go for repair? It cannot go back to Belfast because there is not a dry dock large enough to take it. Shipping is becoming bigger and bigger. The tanker companies are going in for 100,000 ton tankers. They can never go to Belfast to be repaired. There is no hope of a repair job there for the big tankers. The big tanker during the course of its life has to come back to be almost rebuilt, for its plates wear out because of the cargoes that it carries.
Unless Belfast is provided with a dry dock, I believe that in the years ahead it will be left behind as a shipbuilding yard, because the tendency will always be to build a ship where it can be repaired. That is good shipbuilding practice, and where practical it is done. The dry dock is among the matters which must receive immediate action. It is a great pity that the Ulster Government six years ago did not get on with the job of building that dry dock, whatever the cost and whatever the consequences. The world requirement for large dry docks is considerable; there are plenty of small dry-docking facilities


but there are not enough large dry docks.
Let me say what is wrong with the Northern Ireland Government. Ministers have been in their jobs far too long. They need a shuffle. Even here in the Imperial Parliament Ministers are moved around in the same Government. How many Ministers of Defence have we had —five, six, or seven? The Minister of Transport and the Leader of the House have been in many offices during the last few years. Ministers can be too long in their jobs. They lose initiative and drive. I say with the greatest respect to them, most of whom I have known personally and for whom I have a high personal respect, that it would be a good thing to get a bit of fresh air into the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Let them try some new people and get some more initiative from people who are prepared to do something more than just repeat this long recital, to which I have already referred, of how good they have been in the past but without a suggestion of what they might do in the future. The shipbuilding facilities at Belfast have got to be provided, with the dry dock, in such a way that Northern Ireland can tender and take work in, and that must be done immediately.
With regard to aircraft, here again the establishment is there. So are the machinery, the workshops, the men, the skill and the craft. They are outside the merged firms. Therefore, being outside the merged firms, and having a fairly healthy dose of State capital within the organisation, the Northern Ireland Minister in charge has a right to demand from the Government at home a firm statement of what is proposed to be done about the declining aircraft industry, with particular reference to the aircraft industry situated at Belfast.
This is essential because although engineers in this country can change their jobs with some facility—if they are in Birmingham they can go to Coventry, and so on—where does an engineer who is out of work in Belfast go to? He has to take an aeroplane or a boat to this country. It would be very much better to sustain that industry in Belfast. Here again, the Government are the people who order aircraft. They decide where the aircraft shall be built.

What should be demanded now is a clear exposition by the Government at home of what they propose to do in the allocation of orders and what proportion of orders will go to Short Brothers at Belfast during the next few years.
I have been a little surprised when reading the reports of previous debates in the Ulster Parliament. I remember an intervention by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland twelve or fourteen months ago in the House announcing that the Britannia was to be built. Now the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South says that the contract has not yet been signed. This is appalling. Who in the Northern Ireland Parliament has made a scene about the fact that the Britannia contract has not been signed? Members should have been on their feet every day demanding from the Government that this contract should be signed.
It is the crying child that gets the most milk in this world, and it is no use sitting back and complaining, fourteen months after the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland interrupted one of my colleagues on the Opposition side—that small, happy band of men who keep that Parliament alive—to announce "We have got the contract for the Britannia." It is not signed yet. If this is not a case of dilatoriness on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland, I do not know what is. We will support those hon. Members in their demand for the Government to state their real proposals for the aircraft industry, for we are also interested to know what the proposals are for this country as well as Northern Ireland.
In the short term, we must deal with the present indigenous resources of Northern Ireland—shipbuilding, engineering, aircraft and, of course, agriculture. I bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. Member for Armagh on agriculture, but I am bound to say that I have never understood why thousands of people should have left agriculture in Northern Ireland when, on their doorstep, is the biggest customer in the world for agricultural produce.

Captain Orr: Because of mechanisation.

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says there is mechanisation, but can he assure me that the whole of


agriculture in Northern Ireland is so fully utilised that the best is being obtained from every single acre? I very much doubt it. All I know is that from a country that did not treat us too happily during the war and after—the Argentine—we take meat to the tune of £58 million a year. The Argentinians do not complain that they are thousands of miles from the shores of this country. They sell us the meat, and it is, presumably, sold at prices which enable it to be bought and sold in the shops here.
Do hon. Members from Northern Ireland really say that the short distance between Northern Ireland and this country is to be compared with the long haul from the Argentine and that their meat trade cannot be put on such a basis —by chilling, by using air freight or by developing the fresh meat trade—that they can have a substantial part of the meat trade which the Argentine is now doing with this country? If so, I shall be very surprised and, with great respect to the hon. Member for Armagh, I shall draw the conclusion that the industry is not as efficient as it is made out to be.
It seems to me, also, that Northern Ireland ought to be establishing a good many industries secondary to the agriculture industry. In this country, the demand for pre-packed foods grows week by week. Supermarkets are being built all over the country and, of course, this country, which is a part of the United Kingdom, is not the only place where pre-packed foods are required. They are required on the Continent and elsewhere. There is not enough planning behind developing agriculture in order to create secondary industries to provide things such as, for example, tannery products. Why do the people of Northern Ireland import 1,250,000 pairs of shoes every year, when they could, obviously, if tanning were a really good secondary industry, do a good deal of the work themselves?
The figures are there. The hon. and gallant Member has but to look at the Trade and Navigation Accounts, as I have, to see exactly what this country is buying and to see exactly what Northern Ireland could supply. He must then ask himself the question, "Why cannot we supply, over a few miles of water, some of those things?" Again, he will come back to the answer that Northern

Ireland's industry is not organised to do the job and elsewhere industry is. This is where initiative is required.
It is no use coming here to say that a Cabinet committee or some more money here or there will do the job. It will not. It will be an "ambulance", it will help on the way, but it will not do the job. The solution to Northern Ireland's problem lies in Northern Ireland, through bringing all that country's indigenous resources and skilled manpower together, working them together, and finding out exactly what can be done in order to supply this huge market which lies upon its doorstep. What is really needed is a good deal of initiative.
That is the short-term solution. In the long term, what is needed is a development corporation. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South suggested that the present Development Council will be as effective as a development corporation would be. I do not agree at all. If there were a corporation on the basis which he indicated—I would put its capital at far more than £25 million—I could tell him where some of the capital could come from. It is costing already about £5 million a year, in very rough figures—it may be much more—to provide unemployment pay for the 30,000 unemployed people of Northern Ireland. That sum in itself would service a loan of £100 million.
I am as careful as anyone about spending public money, but I would rather see money servicing a big loan for capital development than pay money out to men and women who are out of work and who would be much happier working than receiving unemployment pay. The best way to use public money is to use it for development purposes, not for the payment of subsistence allowances. With such a loan of about £100 million, which unemployment and other allowances on top would service, it would be possible for a corporation having the right itself to develop industries really to go ahead and do something.
Industry will not come running to Northern Ireland and say, "We want to put a factory here". No doubt, people in Northern Ireland have been tremendously encouraged by the Council and much has been done, but what is required is a corporation with money and power


to set up industries and have its salesmen throughout the world selling the goods which can be made. All over the world, developments of enormous size are taking place. In Africa and Australia, for instance, and many places throughout the Commonwealth, vast sums of money are being spent on engineering and engineering products. In my view, in Northern Ireland there could be a number of firms meeting the requirements of some of these enormous engineering projects throughout the world. Energetic people could set up smaller engineering shops for the production of such things. But one must go out into the world and sell the commodities, and, before one can sell them, one has to have the commodities to sell. The Council is not at the moment in a position to do that, but a corporation would be. It could set up its own organisation and own its own factories.
But, of course, the real problem is that neither the Government here nor the Ulster Government like State ownership of anything, and they are prepared to accept the failures of private enterprise— this is what has happened in Northern Ireland and this is why so much Northern Irish money is invested outside—rather than swallow a bit of political pride and say that, as private enterprise has failed in Northern Ireland, they must go in with State enterprise and do something about it. The world is Northern Ireland's oyster just as it is the oyster of Great Britain or any other great manufacturing country. But, of course, people have to go all out to do these things.
The short-term solution can be applied, I think, only with tremendous help from the Government here at home. The job cannot be done in Northern Ireland itself. The long-term job is a Northern Ireland job, and it is a job that can be done. There are men there with the capacity to do it. It is a first-class country with first-class people in it, with good craftsmen, and a reputation which is high throughout the world. The people of Northern Ireland have all they need to do a good job except a good Government to ensure it.

8.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I know that we all join with the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in congratulating

my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) on his excellent maiden speech. The right hon. Gentleman, very adequately, I think, expressed our views on this happy occasion.
I shall not go into detail in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh on the subject of agricultural policy except to say that I will of course take up his suggestion for more explanation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The more the Government's agricultural policy is explained, the more successful it is, because, of course, it is so good that further explanation cannot but add to its great value and enhance its prestige.
When I listened to my hon. Friend, I thought, at first, when he spoke about the children of Israel, that he was engaged upon the Book of Lamentations, but, a little later, when he came to his paeans and psalms of praise, the objects were the pig and the potato. I am glad that some aspects of this year's Price Review, at any rate, pleased our friends in Northern Ireland.
I remind my hon. Friend, also, of the Small Farmers' Scheme, introduced only a short time ago, the operation of which I myself have watched as it has assisted the small farmers of Northern Ireland. It has been one of the most beneficial Measures of its time in helping the small farmer in Northern Ireland. The number of schemes which have improved the position of Northern Ireland farmers compared with the total number of schemes is quite staggering, and it has been a Measure essentially designed to assist Northern Ireland as well as small farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom.
If there is time, my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will try to answer other points. I shall be brief, because I do not wish to stand in the way of the debate more than I can help. The right hon. Member for Blyth gave us an example in that. I thought that no possible exception could be taken to the tone of his speech, except that I did notice a difference of emphasis between the way he spoke about the Northern Ireland Government and the way he spoke about the Northern Ireland Opposition. He seemed to be somewhat prejudiced in favour of the latter. Apart


from that, we could not take exception to his lively and energetic intervention in the debate which was, I feel certain, intended to put forward constructive ideas for the future of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member referred to me as the Minister primarily responsible for Northern Ireland. I suppose that, broadly, that is so, but I must point out that the matters referred to in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), whom we should congratulate on his good fortune in drawing a place in the Ballot, fall almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Northern Ireland Government.
To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, his speech made that quite clear. It is very important, if we are to have discussions in this House, that that should be acknowledged from both sides. If the spirit of the debate so far is maintained, nothing but good can come of it. But the idea that we are solely responsible for these matters will not do at all, nor would it really be accepted by the Northern Ireland Ministers.
My other colleagues in the Government—the President of the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Labour, who has been sitting with us for most of the debate—have just as much to do with the affairs of Northern Ireland as I, but, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will know, it is a proud tradition of the Home Office that we can help from time to time in coordination or in personal help with the problems of Northern Ireland.
I wish to deal with only two matters, unemployment and the danger to the Border, both of which were referred to in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South. Before I deal with those matters, however, I want to make one general observation. During my visits to Northern Ireland I have sensed a feeling of unity between us that Northern Ireland is at present and must remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. If the debate can also underline that fact, so much the better.
To deal shortly, but, I hope, sincerely with the problem of unemployment, I knew about this when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, I asked

Lord Chandos to go there are help us with the constructive work which he has been doing since in helping to entice more industries to Northern Ireland. I have been specially concerned with it in visits and here since I have been Home Secretary. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South has drawn attention to the high level of unemployment. During practically the whole period of the existence of Ulster this has been a serious problem, and it is bound up with the general economy in the country.
We have had this constantly in mind, and in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, may I say that I think that we have enough consultative machinery. I have been in touch with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and he certainly takes the view that we should pursue our present methods of consultation and working together rather than the specific proposal made by my hon. and gallant Friend. That does not mean that we shall not pursue these consultations. We must do so, as I shall shortly show.
It has been quite rightly stated that unemployment stands at the large figure of about 7·6 per cent. In the textile recession it was at one time as high as 10 per cent., a period during which I was Chancellor. We managed to reduce it by a variety of measures, including some to deal with the linen industry, to 7 per cent. in 1954. That was a very considerable improvement in two years. There are 36,000 unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman's figures put the position in an alarming but not inaccurate way. The figure of unemployment is now 4,800 less than it was a year ago. There is, to that extent, no room for complacency, but, also, there is no room for deep despondency.
The right hon. Member and my hon. and gallant Friend referred to the many steps taken by the Government of Northern Ireland—the Industries Development Acts, the Capital Grants to Industry Acts, the continuation of the Northern Ireland Development Council and the recent decision of the Northern Ireland Government to participate in the United Kingdom Investment Unit in New York. I discussed this matter with the Prime Minister on my recent visit. I am glad that the Government there are taking part in this, because we must not


only attract industry from the United Kingdom but I think that there is a great opportunity of attracting industry from the United States. If we can do that, it will help considerably to find some of the jobs to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, in all these ways there has been an improvement.
As has been said, 73 new firms in the last ten years, and 22,000 new jobs, indicate that an effort is being made. I believe that this effort can be pushed forward, although I do not accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, basing myself on the statements of the Minister of Finance of Northern Ireland, that a corporation should take the place of the Development Council. I do not believe that it is solely on grounds of ideology that this decision has been taken. Whatever decision is taken in this matter should be on the basis, to which the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland referred, of getting extra jobs and finding more factories and enterprises. Any machinery that can be developed to that end should be encouraged.
I want to refer, in answer to a request from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, to the operation of the Local Employment Act and what further steps can be taken in relation to the Act. On the Third Reading of the Local Employment Bill, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
I should like to confirm, whatever is said in the Bill… that in operating the industry development certificate system we shall certainly bear in mind not only the unemployment requirements in Great Britain but in Northern Ireland as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1180.]
That is the intention of the Government. In the debate on 23rd February the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
… we try to use the powers that we have of refusing industrial development certificates to help steer industry to Northern Ireland". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 314]
I want to make plain that we in the Government here explain to all firms intending to expand the benefits to be gained by establishing themselves in Northern Ireland and other places of high unemployment. But we have agreed to take one further step. In future, the

Board of Trade will do its very best to inform officials of the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland of the names of all firms who are known to be interested in expanding, or who, through the refusal of an industrial development certificate, are obliged to look elsewhere for their needs. This will be done in all cases where the firms themselves agree. In this way, the Minister of Commerce will be able to point out the attractions of Northern Ireland.
This has been done as a result of representations from and after consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland about the effect on Northern Ireland of the measures proposed for Great Britain in the Local Employment Act. That is the idea in the letter from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland which I have here. The Prime Minister goes on to say that he hopes, at a mutually convenient time, to discuss the employment position with me personally and to pursue any suggestions of a constructive character which may be made in this debate.

Mr. Mellish: Do I understand that the whole of the Local Employment Act, as it applies to Britain, will now apply to Northern Ireland? If so, that was not the original intention. May we have this matter quite clear?

Mr. Butler: It applies in the sense that I have mentioned, namely, in dealing with the refusal of a certificate; and we propose to make it possible for the Minister of Commerce to advertise the vacancies in industries in Northern Ireland and to use this method of publicity to attract firms which are refused certificates here to Northern Ireland. It does not mean that we shall forget the other areas of unemployment in Great Britain, but it does mean that we wish, where possible, to encourage firms to go to Northern Ireland. I believe that this will help the situation in relation to firms taking up their position in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Blyth referred specifically to the Belfast dry dock and to the signature of the Britannic contract. The Belfast dry dock was referred to as late as 15th March by Lord Glentoran at Stormont. He said that the partners, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend quite fairly referred, are


not clear whether they wish to continue with the project. It was put to him that one of the partners wished to continue with it, but he did not regard this as sufficient evidence of certainty that it would be finally a good scheme. He said, however, that Government financial assistance would follow if the scheme was found to be sound.
I cannot add to what the right hon. Gentleman himself has said. There would be great advantages in such a scheme if the partners concerned considered it a good thing. For our part, if any such scheme is found by those on the spot to be advisable, we should certainly wish to see it go forward for the very good reason that when they lose their children—the Canberra—the Belfast boys would like to see it come back.
In the case of the Britannic contract, I have nothing to add to the debates which took place on Supply this year, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air indicated his wish that we should get further ahead with it. To be quite fair, the right hon. Member for Blyth was inclined to blame the Northern Ireland Government for this. I do not want myself to assume the blame, but I think that we should hasten towards the signature of the contract. The fact that there is no formal contract has not held up the work, but a great deal of money and eventually, a great many machines of one type or another will be involved. The fact that no contract has yet been signed has not hitherto held up the work. I accept, however, the advice of the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner we get the contract signed, the better it will be.
Before I sit down, as there are other hon. Members who wish to speak, I simply want to say this to Northern Ireland about the Border, which I have twice visited: your Border is our Border; your soil is our soil. That is why we are jointly interested in the defence of Northern Ireland from irresponsible and sometimes violent terrorist attacks.
The people of Northern Ireland have shown restraint and calm in the face of provocation. We should recognise the particular efficiency of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the continued sacrifice of the Special Constabulary, many of

whom I have met, who have combined their strenuous life in maintaining the security of the Border with, in many cases, their own personal occupations and businesses.
I know that there has been feeling in Northern Ireland that stronger measures should be taken by the authorities in the Irish Republic to put down terrorism. It is a cause for satisfaction that both the present Prime Minister of the Republic and his predecessor, who is now President, have spoken against violence and are aware of the need to keep the peace in the Border area. There is a great deal more improvement yet to achieve, although we must recognise a welcome decrease in the number of terrorist attacks last winter. I hope that this will indicate the signal failure of the terrorist efforts.
My main reason for intervening tonight is to assure hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland of our sympathy and support. While we find that their Motion does not, perhaps, take full account of all that has been done, we understand very well that in an atmosphere of Northern Ireland politics, or mixed with House of Commons politics, it is a habit of Northern Ireland public men to put things in black and white rather than grey. Realising that that is a natural characteristic, and supporting what the right hon. Member for Blyth has said about the great value of the character, workmanship and ability of the citizens and those who contribute to the wealth, whether in agriculture or industry, of Northern Ireland, recognising their great loyalty to this country and to the Crown, we welcome the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and the fact that this debate has taken place.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I intervene in this debate because during my period at the Ministry of Aircraft Production I had some responsibility for the transfer of Short Bros, and Harland from this country to Belfast. At that time, we had considerable difficulty in persuading technicians and design staff to go and live in Northern Ireland.
Belfast has one of the finest aircraft factories in the Kingdom. Technically,


the Northern Ireland people, both workmen and designers, can hold their own with anybody in British industry. This country and the Government have an obligation to fulfil what were, in effect, pledges made when that factory was transferred to Northern Ireland, and every step should be taken to ensure that, if it cannot be supplied with aircraft work because of the change of emphasis in aircraft, at least alternative work should go there.
Speaking as a rival competitor for industry from Scotland—because Scotland has 100,000 unemployed and desperately needs industry—I emphasise also the fact that unless the Government take the matter of the location of industry seriously, there will be a growing number of unemployed at the fringes of our civilisation. Already people are leaving the islands of the North and moving to the mainland, and life is contracting towards the centre. If the Government are not to allow London and Birmingham to contain the entire population of the country, a determined effort must be made to see that industry goes to other areas. That applies to Northern Ireland as well as to Scotland.

Mr. Ede: And the North-East Coast.

Mr. Woodburn: And the North-East Coast.

Mr. Ede: Which is not on the fringes of civilisation.

Mr. Woodburn: I agree. Perhaps the North-East Coast is the most civilised place, after Scotland. Naturally, we have very great sympathy with the "Sudeten" Scots who live there, just as we have the greatest sympathy with the "Sudeten" Scots in Northern Ireland. No one can dispute the character, or the capacity to work, of the people in the North.
Belfast has one of the most enterprising engineering works in the United Kingdom, managed in a way in which very few people manage industry, with energy and enterprise. I am satisfied that it is not for want of trying that that engineering works is not fully employed. I have seen factories in Northern Ireland and I have been able to compare them with similar factories elsewhere, and I

can say that they give workmanship and conscientiousness second to none.
However, they will not get work unless a determined effort is made. There are two methods by which that can be done. The other day I heard it described as "push and pull". Northern Ireland and Scotland can pull industry towards them by various inducements, and the Government can help in that. The Government can also help by pulling industry from many of the places where labour is not available and pushing it to areas where labour is available. We have either to allow the population to drift to where industry is, or see that industry is established where the population is. If we accept that the North, Scotland and Northern Ireland are to be populated, then it is the business of the Government to get rid of their prejudices against Government action and to push industry into those areas.
Northern Ireland has a disadvantage compared with Scotland. On the Clyde, we suffered for many years because of the slander that labour conditions were disturbed. Competitors spread rumours about labour disputes and bad labour conditions on the Clyde, so that industry did not go there, and we suffered accordingly.
Northern Ireland also suffers in that way and will continue to do so as long as there is strife on the Border, which will prevent industry coming from other countries. Such difficulties cause uncertainties to people who do not know the circumstances. People in Northern Ireland live on a frontier, which is not a healthy occupation, and industries do not want to be in the position of the Israel and Arab nations who have to watch each other across their borders while getting on with their work.
Most of the people who carry out raids and disturbances across the Irish Border consider themselves to be Irish patriots, but what they do is not patriotic, because many of their friends and relatives live in Northern Ireland, and such activities help to prevent industries from going to Northern Ireland and providing jobs for those friends and relatives.
Scotland is a little envious of Northern Ireland, because, after the Labour Party here started to attack the Government about not helping Northern Ireland, the Government began to get a move on and


began to pour money into inducing industries to go to Northern Ireland when they might have gone to Scotland. Such efforts should not be confined to Northern Ireland but should be applied to all areas which are losing industries. It is clear that the Government have got to get down to the problem of the location of industry and decide that they will push and will help with the pulling. The Government have a power which nobody else has. It is an essential part of our civilisation that Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England should have industries so that people can earn a livelihood in a dignified way.
The first troubles started in 1954 when the I.R.A. resurged out of retirement and attacked three military barracks. I regret to say that they were in part successful and they made off with a quantity of arms. My opponent in the 1955 election was elected after one of these raids and while he was lodged in prison. He subsequently recanted and gave up the I.R.A. He was sent home and I am told he is taking no further part in political activities.

8.40 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel R. G. Grosvenor: I hope that the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) will forgive me if I do not follow him along his industrial paths, because I represent an agricultural border constituency and my intimate knowledge of industry is nowhere near as great as his. However, I entirely agree with the remarks he made about the border.
I wish to speak as briefly as possible to that part of the Motion which reads:
That this House … deplores the continuance of armed raids across the United Kingdom border …".
As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a land border, and many people in Great Britain forget that it is the only land border within the United Kingdom. I represent a constituency which for the last three years has had 150 somewhat unhappy miles of this border.
Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has now left the Chamber. He paid us a visit before Christmas and at a news conference when he was leaving he did not say anything about sanctions. I assure the House that the situation on the border

has become increasingly quiet since he said nothing about sanctions. My only regret is that he did not "say nothing" about sanctions a good deal earlier.
The discussion tonight has been mainly on the economics of our country, and I should like to try to show that the economic troubles, which we have been suffering with the I.R.A. across the Border, have been shared by the I.R.A. The I.R.A. is an illegal force, both in the North of Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Curiously enough, it is not an illegal organisation in Great Britain. That is an anomaly which is sometimes difficult to understand. The I.R.A. is well armed. It has bought and stolen arms. It is well trained. It is divided into small guerrilla groups which operate with speed, silence, and occasionally with efficiency, across the border against Her Majesty's Forces, both police and Army.
These excursions across the border have resulted in two principal upsets in our economy and life. First, we have had casualties. When I say "we", I do not mean we Ulster people, I mean we British people. Four policemen have been killed, and 26 policemen and soldiers wounded. They were British policemen and soldiers. We have also suffered damage which is estimated at about £700,000. That is a charge on the British taxpayer, and not on the Ulster taxpayer alone. It is shared because we are part of the United Kingdom and it is a charge on the taxpayers throughout the United Kingdom. We have suffered casualties, death, and destruction, we have widows and orphans, and we have this bill to pay. That is one effect which this illegal force has upon the economy of Northern Ireland.
In spite of this, and although we have a heavy unemployment problem, industry has expanded. My hon. Friend has told us of the new jobs which have been found. In spite of this, too, agricultural efficiency and production has increased —although certain criticisms of it have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis). We have been fighting a land battle on the border while the interior has continued not only to exist but to flourish. That is a great tribute to the police and the Armed Forces, whose job it is to keep law and order, and to keep the members of the I.R.A. at bay.
We talk of these people coming over the border. They operate almost entirely from the Republic of Ireland. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland has been made abundantly clear over the years. The Republic of Ireland became a separate State in 1920. It subsequently decided to opt out of the Commonwealth. It chose its way of life and we chose ours. We wished it well; we wished it success and prosperity—and especially prosperity, because no state is comfortable with a pauper as a neighbour.

Mr. Simon Mabon: Who made it a pauper?

Lieut-Colonel Grosvenor: I can only say that it made itself a pauper. I am trying to deal with the present and the future. That State sent its young people in thousands over here. They are now employed in profitable jobs, and we are delighted to have them. They help us. We are glad that, up to a point, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have tackled the problem of the terrorist menace in our part of the United Kingdom, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will maintain conversations with the Government of the Republic of Ireland in order to see that those efforts are not only continued but strengthened.
The police and Armed Forces of Northern Ireland are doing all they can, but if a man runs for a hundred yards across the border into Northern Ireland and shoots somebody, or lets off a mine full of gelignite, and then runs back, we cannot send in men behind him to stop him. The Government of Northern Ireland have done everything they can with the forces available to them, and it now rests with Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland to do the rest.
I have talked about the economics of the situation, and have given relevant figures, but there are still other figures. We have to remember the extra police, clothes, wireless sets, armoured cars, rifles and machine guns that are required, all of which would be entirely unnecessary if we and our neighbours could live at peace. It is only right that British people living in the United Kingdom should be allowed to live peacefully in their homes, in their home country.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: My only excuse for intervening in a debate on Northern Ireland is that I happen to represent a trade union which is very concerned with the vast number of skilled workers in Northern Ireland, so many of whom are now unemployed. This has been a matter of continuing anxiety to my union. Representations have been made by the union to the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply over a long period. In return, we have always received expressions of sympathy, but sympathy does not fill bellies, and that is what we are concerned about.
That is why I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has introduced this Motion. It gives an opportunity for hon. Members on this side to say something about the matter. I am sure that if certain members of my union who are in Northern Ireland had been elected to this House they would have made a much more vociferous protest about the position of Northern Ireland than has been voiced by hon. Members opposite. It is always the problem that we get a one-sided representation and we fail to hear the true voice of the people. Now we are getting an opportunity which we ought to have had a long time ago.
Let us examine the labour position. I understand that out of every 100 coming on to the labour market only about 20 obtain jobs; 15 per cent. remain unemployed, and 65 per cent. emigrate. One of the greatest problems which Northern Ireland has to face is the gradual depopulation of the country because of the failure of the economic system to provide work, wages and conditions which would keep the people happy and contented. There is no getting away from this. It is the product of the economic system—

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the population in Northern Ireland is increasing faster than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pargiter: Northern Ireland increases its population, but it is decreased by emigration. Exactly the same is happening in Southern Ireland. There is considerable emigration from Northern Ireland, especially among skilled


workers. I should have thought that Northern Ireland could ill afford to lose such workers, but inevitably they will be lost. Though a man may not wish to leave his home country, he is almost bound to do so in the interests of himself and his family, because there is little prospect of employment for him in Northern Ireland.
We talk academically about unemployment. It is one of those things which every hon. Member should encounter at some time during his life. The fear of unemployment is one of the most compelling factors in human relations. At present, there is a greater fear of unemployment in Northern Ireland because of the position of Short Bros, and Harland, with which I will deal in a moment.
A great deal has been said about the Northern Ireland Development Council, of which Lord Chandos is the Chairman. I cannot say that the Council has been conspicuously successful in dealing with unemployment. It has no power to do so, and because it has not the power it has not been successful, despite the eminence of its Chairman. Its efforts have been attended with so little success that we might well have a similar sort of council in the Greater London area, where there is too much industry, because perhaps it might manage to get rid of some of it to the benefit of some of the other areas to which we are referring.
Between August, 1951, which is a significant date, and February, 1952—these dates are rather important for hon. Members opposite—the unemployment figure in Northern Ireland increased 2½ times. There has been a decrease, but the figure has remained substantially higher during practically the whole period of the present Government, and there is not much cause for complacency among Government supporters, even though they express sympathy with the situation. Even at the present time the proportion of unemployed males is almost one in nine, which is a terrible number to be unemployed with little prospect of future employment.

Mr. Harry Randall: I am interested in the comments of my hon. Friend about the unemployment situation, which is even worse among Post Office employees. Northern Ireland contains more part-time labour in

the Post Office than any other part of the United Kingdom, which to a certain extent is the result of the employment situation.

Mr. Pargiter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciate what has happened and I realise that there is an inability to provide proper employment for the workers.
We know that shipbuilding will face difficulties in any case, and we know the problems concerning ship repairing. We know that there will be intensive competition between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Britain for ship repairing, quite apart from foreign competition, which is likely to continue. Belfast is likely to be in a lesser position to compete because of the failure to provide large dry dock facilities.
It seems to me that if it is in the national interest, and in the interest of providing employment, that the Government should provide £50 million for Colvilles for a strip mill in Scotland, there is a case to be made out for providing a dry dock for Belfast. Is it not possible for something to be done? Surely, these things are comparable. I do not think that, on the question of whether it is needed or not, it should be allowed to go by the board. I hope that Northern Ireland Members will keep close track of this matter, because what is sauce for the goose in Scotland is equally sauce for the gander in Northern Ireland. I am sure that it would be beneficial for those shipyard workers now facing such a bleak outlook.
I want to refer to the question of the Britannic. I am amazed by the position. We are now told by the Government that they are hopeful that a contract will shortly be signed. In the early summer, a deputation from my union—the A.E.U.—came to see Members of Parliament over here, and this question was gone into with the appropriate Departments. Having been told, "Things are pending and going on very nicely", my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) went to see the then Minister of Supply. That was in midsummer. He was told, "Don't worry; it is going on very nicely. The contract will be signed very shortly." What does "very shortly" mean to the Government? We do not expect much. We have had a change. We have not now


a Minister of Supply but a new Minister of Aviation. It becomes "very shortly" each time a new Minister takes over because he is only interested in what has been done since he has been there. This is a most disgraceful state of affairs. This aircraft is badly needed. The air lift to Libya recently indicated the urgent need for transport aircraft for our armed forces. Before long, another one thousand workers of Short Brothers and Harland will be facing the possibility of being out of work unless something is done very rapidly about this contract.
It is no good the Government telling us that something will be done "very shortly". Let someone speak authoritatively from the Government Front Bench and tell us the date when this contract is to be signed. Let us be told something about it, so that the workers in Northern Ireland can have some assurances as to their future. This is most important. It is one of the things for which the Government have a great deal to answer.
I want to return to my earlier point. A specific promise was made by the then Minister in the middle of the summer, that this contract would be signed very shortly. I can give the exact date when that statement was made. This was after some months of probing and questions concerning not only the Britannic but other types of aircraft under consideration for use there.
Another matter of vital importance is: where do Short Brothers and Harland fit into the general scheme of the reorganisation of the aircraft industry? It is high time the Government let these people know where they are. It is high time these people were given some idea of where they are going, where they fit in, or whether they are to be left out on a limb and given something which others are not particularly keen about—something which does not quite fit in with the pattern the Minister has in mind for the air consortia of the country. Aircraft production is not something to be dealt with from the point of view of Great Britain not including Northern Ireland. These things must be dealt with urgently.
We have to think about agriculture in Northern Ireland and the running down of the flax industry. That is vital to the

country when we consider that Northern Ireland now imports flax because it does not produce enough itself. A lot of economic reasons will perhaps be given for that, but the prosperity of Northern Ireland seems to have gone by the board. We should think of the cities and towns which are going derelict because of failure to look at them from the point of view of industrial development. Belfast is obviously an important centre, but it is not the only place where new industry is needed in Northern Ireland. No doubt other hon. Members will deal with this matter. I ask the Government to say what intentions they have, in conjunction with the Government of Northern Ireland, to deal with the position there.
Having regard to the time, although I have a great number of notes, I shall not go further. I am concerned to get an answer on the question of the Britannic so that the workers concerned may go to bed comfortably in the knowledge that they have a job ahead of them.

9.2 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: Most of the ground affecting the situation in Northern Ireland today has been very ably covered by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), in a maiden speech, has given a clear picture of the agricultural industry and the possible effects of the recent Price Review. When we lost Mr. Christopher Armstrong, who formerly represented Armagh, I was a little afraid that, having had such a good Member, it was a gamble on whom we could get to represent the constituency, but I am very glad to say that in my hon. Friend the present Member, Armagh is well and truly represented.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) rather poured cold water on the remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South about the employment situation. He said that my hon. and gallant Friend made no suggestions for a short-term solution of the problem. Then he went on to speak for a considerable time about two strong points made by my hon. and gallant Friend, which have been referred to in further speeches by hon. Members opposite. My hon. and gallant Friend tackled the question of a dry dock. We are very glad to get


support from any hon. Members in connection with the construction of a dry dock in the yards of Harland and Wolff. We realise that this is a matter of very great importance.
The right hon. Member for Blyth asked why, when this was mentioned in 1954, it was not given immediate effect, but it is necessary to have someone to run a dry dock. To "plonk" it down in Belfast and not to tie it with Harland and Wolff would be a ridiculous decision. It is necessary to get the harbour masters to co-operate, because they are connected with the port.
We fully appreciate the reasons given by my hon. and gallant Friend and the right hon. Member for bringing repairing work to Belfast, but it would be a much greater attraction for a large company if, after a new liner had been ordered, it were known that it could be taken to the same yard where it was built in order to be repaired. We are all in favour of this and I earnestly hope that in the very near future Harland and Wolff, the Harbour Commissioners and the Ministry in Northern Ireland will produce a scheme for this dry dock. I emphasise that the finances required for the development of such a scheme may be outside the resources of the Northern Ireland Government. We shall then look to the Government here to help us to ensure that that dry dock is established quickly.
Another point made by my hon. Friend which the right hon. Member for Blyth repeated concerned the finalising and signing of the contract for the Britannic freighter. This is not the Britannia, as the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) described it, but the Britannic. I listened with great pleasure to the fine tribute which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) paid to the firm of Short Bros, and Harland Ltd., to its workmen, its planning, its management, the fine work which it has done in the past and its capacity to continue to turn out equally fine work.

Mr. Pargiter: I spoke of the Britannic, which I understood to be a commercial version of the Britannia.

Sir D. Campbell: I apologise to the hon. Member. I thought that he was referring to the Britannia throughout his speech. Perhaps it was the right hon.

Member for Blyth who made that mistake. It is the Britannic freighter which we are discussing. This is not a very material point.
In any event, we agree with the right hon. Member for Blyth in wishing that the contract should be signed as early as possible, although we have been assured by the Minister concerned that the absence of the formal signing of the contract has not held up the general project. I am not in a position to say that that is not so, but I am in a position to say that the general feeling in Northern Ireland, in Short and Harland in particular and among the fine body of men working there, is one of uncertainty. It is essential that this contract should be finalised and signed as early as possible. Whether it will make production go ahead much quicker I do not know, but it is essential for the general well-being and morale of our people in Northern Ireland, and particularly in Short and Harland, that the contract should be signed at once.
Those are the two principal subjects on which I trust and hope that my right hon. Friend, in winding up the debate, will be able to give us some assurance— that the Government will favourably consider any scheme for helping Northern Ireland to finance the provision of a dry dock in Belfast and, secondly, that they will get on at once with finalising the contract for the Britannic.
The right hon. Member for Blyth referred to agriculture and cast doubts on the efficiency of our farmers. Perhaps he was not brought up on a farm and does not know very much about farming. They must forgive his ignorance in this respect. But I know something about farming and how a farm is run, and I know that our farmers in Northern Ireland are splendid workers, know how to make the best use of their land, and are hard-working and efficient in every way. The production of our farms in Northern Ireland has greatly increased and is still increasing year by year.
The right hon. Gentleman says, "If the Argentine can sell beef at these low prices, even after having shipped it to this country from the Argentine, why cannot the Northern Ireland farmers do the same?" Does he wish our standard of living in Northern Ireland, whether on the farms or in industry, to be


reduced to that in the Argentine? That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
I know that a number of other hon. Members want to join in this debate, and I conclude by saying to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who spoke earlier, and to my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who I understand will wind up the debate, that we are grateful for the assistance which the Imperial Government have given to Northern Ireland. But the problem is still there. It is a very difficult one, and we ask not only that they should continue their assistance, but that they should step it up.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) is a very respected Member of this House and, in a way, I am sorry that I have to follow him in the debate. I wish that I had been following the hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut-Colonel Grosvenor), because, indeed, I intended to refer to some of the things that he said. However, I should like to say to the hon. Member for Belfast. South that one of the good things about this debate is that, for the first time in this House, it has been a debate on Northern Ireland in which we have not had a long wrangle about the religious controversy. For that we can be grateful.
The hon. and gallant Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made reference to T.R.A. raids on the border. I should like to say that I do not think his speech contributed very much towards what I would regard as a satisfactory solution of the problem. I am one of those people who have always believed that the people of Southern and Northern Ireland have got to get together at some time, for no nation as small as this can continue to be divided. Therefore, I should have thought that anything that was said in this House would have been directed towards that purpose. I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. While no one would wish to defend the terrorist raids which have taken place, we can all have sympathy with the ordinary decent Irishman who is in the southern part of Ireland and who has certain passion-

ate feelings about what happened in yesteryear. I do not defend any terrorists anywhere, whether in Cyprus or Southern Ireland, and I never will.

Lieut-Colonel Grosvenor: I assume that the hon. Gentleman does not believe in the unity by force of the two parts of Ireland, which is what these people believe in?

Mr. Mellish: It must never be forgotten that the future of Ireland was not decided by Ireland but by this House, and that is something that we must clearly understand. The British Government carry a great responsibility. The Irish people know that. That is why there is a great deal of animosity about it.
I wish to say this about the problems of Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is something of a fraud that in this House we get a large number of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland constituencies who owe almost their entire allegiance to the Conservative Party. I gather that the term "Unionist" is also used by these Members of the Tory Party. This has been one reason why very many decent hon. Members from Northern Ireland have not been so outspoken about the problems of their country as they might have been. It is a lesson to us on this side of the House. Their loyalty to their own Front Bench, indeed, is simply remarkable, for they will do almost anything rather than embarrass it. In that respect, I admire them. I can understand party loyalties, and I respect them for showing that loyalty.
There are now problems that are very obvious, and it does not matter what the hon. Member for Belfast, South said about the dry dock, because as long ago as 1954 this scheme was proposed. It was being discussed then, but I do not recall anyone from Northern Ireland getting up here and making a scream in order to find out what was going on in those long, weary years. I do not remember anybody on that side of the House screaming out for this to be done, but now they are saying that this dry dock is absolutely essential. It was six years ago, but if we started building it now, it would only mean further long delay.

Sir D. Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. With


regard to the dry dock—I tried to explain this and I should like to repeat it—it is true that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) mentioned it in 1954, but he did not state as I did that a dry dock is necessary for ship repairing. It is no good introducing a dry dock, whether it is built by the Government here or by the Northern Ireland Government, manning it and putting people in charge to make a success of it unless it is tied up with the shipyard of Harland and Wolff. We have also got to get Harland and Wolff together with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners to agree a scheme for a dry dock, and then we can ask for the support of the Government. If that occasion had arisen, we Ulster Members would certainly have demanded from my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench that the Government should give the necessary financial assistance.

Mr. Robens: In 1954 I was in touch with the managing director of Harland and Wolff. The firm was entirely in favour of the scheme.

Mr. Mellish: What the hon. Member for Belfast, South has just said could hardly be described as an intervention. It lasted quite a while. However, it brings me back to my point. In theory, the Motion is supposed to be some sort of censure on the Government, but at one stage I thought that it was the Loyal Address to the Queen. It was pathetic It mentions the I.R.A. raids. That is only a diversion from the real troubles which face the northern part of Ireland today.

Captain Orr: It deals with economic problems.

Mr. Mellish: It has very little to do with the economic problems of Northern Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman started talking about the cost of the raids to Northern Ireland, but the I.R.A. situation has hardly anything to do with the economics of the problem, as every hon. Member opposite who represents an Irish constituency knows. I do not defend I.R.A. raids, and I want that to be perfectly clear, but to mention I.R.A. raids is a diversionary tactic.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) has just made

his maiden speech. He should keep quiet now. The last thing I should want to do is to say anything horrible to the hon. Member on the day of his maiden speech. He has that to come later on.
The trouble is that the economics of Northern Ireland are very wrapped up in the affairs of Her Majesty's Government. I am a little tired of this Government who talk so patriotically and with so much gush in the House about Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary repeated it tonight. He said, "These wonderful Northern Ireland people are part of this great nation of ours. Together we march forward". To what—to 7½ per cent. unemployed? We hear a great deal of patriotism from the Government Front Bench when it comes to Northern Ireland. One becomes almost sick with the treacle we hear on this subject. The theory is that Southern Ireland, toy implication, is unpatriotic and un-British. But the truth is that the Government have not done for Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland people what they should have done. They have deprived them of many moneys which they should have had in the past.
The Local Employment Bill, which went through the House some months ago, dealt with the problem of Scotland. How many Nothern Ireland Members protested that Northern Ireland was not included? How many of them fought for its inclusion?

Mr. McMaster: Both replies to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred today were in answer to two interventions by me on Second Reading and on Third Reading.

Mr. Mellish: I listened to a great deal of that Bill, and one of the features which impressed me was the determined fight put up by my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies. They fought for what they believed to be right. The fought because unemployment was greater in their part of the country. They showed Parliament how to right at 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock in the morning. How many Northern Ireland Members were even present?
What are this great patriotic Government, who use the Union Jack as a tablecloth every time they have a public


meeting, doing to protect Northern Ireland? They made certain that they excluded Northern Ireland from the Local Employment Bill. Now we learn that there have been conversations—this shows the futility of Northern Ireland Tory Members in the House of Commons —between the Home Secretary, on the one hand, and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, on the other. They have discussed this matter and reached certain agreements. They realise that there are certain problems and that there are certain dispensations which can now be given to Northern Ireland, but which the Government did not give before the Local Employment Bill was introduced.
We have heard that two interventions were made by one Northern Ireland Member. The Motion shows clearly that the energy expended and the political work undertaken by Northern Ireland Members for their constituents is very low indeed. It is all because of the great loyalty they owe to their own Front Bench.
The Motion comes before the House today purely by ballot. Names were put into a hat. By a little luck, or unfortunately—that is what it adds up to—one of their names was drawn. Probably it was the only Northern Ireland name put into the hat. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's name came out of the hat first, and he was compelled to table a Motion. Being a Northern Ireland Member, he had to table a Motion concerning Northern Ireland. However, he tabled it in terms designed to be as kindly and friendly as possible to the Government Front Bench, despite the 7½ per cent, unemployment figure.

Mr. Henry Clark: Would the hon. Gentleman suggest what sort of Motion a Labour Member for a Northern Ireland constituency would have put down?

Mr. Mellish: Yes. As a matter of fact, a Labour Member for a Northern Ireland constituency would have put down a Motion, and would have asked the Leader of the House every Thursday for an opportunity to discuss it. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Clark) should not intervene unless he is quite sure that we on this side do not

know the answers. I could give the hon. Member and his hon. Friends lessons on how to put down Motions on the problems of Northern Ireland—and then let us see if they will take any action. The truth is that they are frightened of their own Front Bench.
Mention has been made of money being found for steel strip mills for Northern Ireland. The money has not been found, although it is found for private enterprise mills. Why cannot some money be found for the introduction of strip mills in Northern Ireland? There is great demand for the strip; we need it badly. Why cannot something be done for these people? Has the matter been discussed with any Government Department?
In a recent debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament the suggestion of a new type of development corporation was put forward by a Labour Member. I do not necessarily accept all that he said about it, nor do I accept that it would solve all the problems there. He said that the present Board is not able to do much that either the Northern Ireland Government or this Government want. It has not the necessary powers or finance. I gather that the sort of corporation envisaged by some Northern Ireland Labour Members would need money from the United Kingdom Government.
Can we be told whether the Government have been approached about this, and whether they are prepared to look again at the whole question of replanning Northern Ireland and the industry it needs through such a corporation? Are they ready, if asked, to find the moneys necessary to bring such new industries as steel strip mills to that part of the United Kingdom?
Have the Government any long-term plans for Northern Ireland? Can they say what they, as the British Government, have decided to do to help this great little country in its hour of need? It is about such things that the Northern Ireland people want to know. This Government have the control, and a great deal of the money, and it is about time they redeemed some of their promises to Northern Ireland.
Let me say this for the Conservative Party. It has certainly had wonderful


dividends from Northern Ireland. A Unionist Government have been in power there for forty years—and how wretched is the record. After getting power, they have resorted to every possible exploitation and then, in the last resort, they claim patriotism itself as something belonging to them alone. The true patriot is the man who considers all that is happening in this country; who considers all the people, and not just a section. I tell the Northern Ireland Members opposite that the day they start attacking the present Government will be the day when they will begin to gain some respect from us.

9.24 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It is a very important matter for Northern Ireland when we have an opportunity to discuss its problems in a fair and—until the speech of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—reasonable manner. We all have the welfare and future of Northern Ireland at heart, and it has, indeed, been very pleasant to learn that there are so many hon. and right hon. Members opposite who feel as we do, and understand as we do, the needs of our part of the world.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, I can only say that I sincerely hope that he does not express the opinions of a large number of hon. Members opposite. If he does— particularly in relation to our situation and our way of living—it is fairly obvious why Northern Ireland freely and democratically sends only Unionist Members to Westminster.
It was also very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) make such a very reasoned speech and, as we would expect from him, a speech very knowledgeable except on the one issue of agriculture. I suggest to him, with all due respect, that it would be a good thing to get a little better liaison or perhaps a better Opposition in Stormont on the agricultural line, and then perhaps he would not have presented the problems as he did. He always has a strong and wise approach, and it is a great pity that he

has not been able to brief himself on agriculture in Northern Ireland as fully as he might have done.
Ulster is interested in international and national affairs which are the concern of Her Majesty's Government. This fact must be stressed. We are not here to support and work only for Northern Ireland. We are here to work for, support and take our full part in all the responsibilities of the United Kingdom Government. Ulster, as part of the United Kingdom, is fully aware of her responsibility and accepts it fully and willingly. She expects Her Majesty's Government to reciprocate equally in fulfilling their responsibility for the welfare and well-being of the people of Ulster.
Devolution has worked very well indeed, but Her Majesty's Government must surely be aware that market trends in Britain and in the world affect us in Northern Ireland more acutely than in any other part of the United Kingdom. They hit us very hard and for a much longer time than is the case in many other parts of the world which have greater resilience and power to come back into the market. Whatever may be said here, the Northern Ireland Government are powerless if the economic climate in Great Britain is not sound and good. We must have a sound economic climate, and it is because the economic climate is sound today that we believe that the next push forward to tackle Northern Ireland's problems can now be undertaken. We can hope to see in the next few years a great improvement—something which has been going on steadily—in our efforts to bring our plans to a stage of final fruition.
However sympathetically the Home Secretary has spoken, and however much we respect his opinions, Her Majesty's Government cannot pass the buck to Stormont and forget about the matter. They have got to take full responsibility for creating the economic climate in which development flourishes. This is the first and prime essential. While we are ready and willing to work more closely, and while we recognise that our own development is closely allied with and follows upon everything that happens here, we also have the right to demand that full recognition of our special needs is kept in the forefront here at Westminster.
May I remind the House that on many occasions we have brought forward Northern Ireland's points of view and have taken our full part in the major issues with which the House must be concerned. I am glad that the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government had more faith than apparently the right hon. Member for Blyth had when, on 5th May, 1955, in a speech in this House, he suggested that the figure of 8,000 employed in the aircraft industry was not a realistic one, but that a figure of 5,000 would be more suitable and that alternative work must be found for the other 3,000, or failing that, alternative work must be found entirely for the 8,000.
That was a sensible and laudable idea, but the Government had faith and the aircraft industry has continued, despite the fact that we are today suffering great difficulties and despite the worries of the people who work in the factory. Their families know the importance of a man coming home with a wage packet on a Friday and the assurance that he will bring another wage packet home the next Friday. Despite these worries, we are confident that the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland will continue and will develop.
I must, however, earnestly ask, as others have asked—indeed, I think I have the right to demand—that whatever is holding up the signature of the Britannic contract should be swept away as quickly as possible. Until this contract is signed, the workers at Shorts will always feel insecure. I do not believe that the Government can afford to be unbusinesslike in the signature of contracts any more than ordinary business concerns can afford to do so. I hope very much that speedy action on the Britannic contract will be the first important thing to emerge from this debate.
In my view, the Government here should take a more active part as the major shareholder in this aircraft company of ours. If I were a shareholder in a company like that, I should sit on its doorstep until I was satisfied that everything was as it should be. A good deal more could be done by the Government, as major shareholders, to see that this balanced firm continues as a balanced firm.
We do not want just one Britannic contract. We want our light freighter, the SC7, to have a chance to develop into something really worth while, as a marketable, versatile aeroplane, an aircraft which can work as an ambulance, spray crops, carry a motor car, take off from a half-mile airstrip, parachute heavy loads, and do a great many different things. It could become a very well worth while and marketable aircraft, given half a chance and real support. Our SC1 vertical take-off craft and all the other magnificent products of, as yet, only half-developed ideas coming from the design team should be given a fair chance so that our developing aircraft industry can grow into something really strong instead of having whatever shoots it does put out here and there cut off for lack of Government finance or lack of Government push to see that ideas are taken up and developed for the markets of the world and really sold on a commercial basis.
I ask my right hon. Friend to do his utmost to ensure that there will be no further delay in regard to the Britannic contract so that the men of our aircraft industry can really look forward to a long-term plan of development, with reasonable security for their work. I am told that there is but a very small trickle of work coming into the shops at the moment, and this is very disturbing to the men. Moreover, it is not good for the works in general. There must be a change as soon as possible.
Much has been said tonight about the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland. This is more than a Northern Ireland problem, and we, as part of the United Kingdom, recognise it as a United Kingdom problem. Let us face it for what it is. We want a dry dock and we need to have every single new idea or possibility explored in order to make our own yards the very best and most versatile they can be; but, with a dry dock, wonderful slipways and all the machinery, one must have the orders too.
What will the future be? It is not very bright and not very clear at the moment. We recognise quite well that the difficulties affect very much all parts of the United Kingdom which are concerned with shipbuilding. What plans have the Government for ensuring that


we do not, in a few years, have an outmoded, out-dated merchant fleet unable to compete in high-speed sea transport taking our goods from this country all over the world and bringing back to us the raw materials without which our land cannot flourish? This is something much wider than our own individual worry in Belfast, and, indeed, our worry in Belfast cannot be overcome until the worries of the whole of the United Kingdom in this matter are overcome. Somehow, manufacturers, ship owners and people likely to give orders must be enthused, enlivened and made confident about the future and encouraged to build the ships of the future to keep Britain and her seaways the best in the world.
This will mean a great deal of thought and a great deal of money, to put it crudely. There will have to be loans and hire purchase on a big scale. I believe that the Government, while advancing the money for these ships, could, at the same time, advise those to whom they advance the money about where they will get speediest delivery of ships and which particular shipyards can help them most in the shortest possible time. A great deal could be done through this to help Northern Ireland and her problem of unemployment.
There are about 22,000 men employed in the shipyards and about 35,000 men who depend, not all of them directly but some directly through sub-contracts, and so on, for their weekly wage packet on the shipbuilding industry and all its ancillaries. For us, this is a major long-term traditional industry which not only deserves but must have full consideration and a plan of development for the future which will include the dry dock and not exclude any possibility of new work which can be brought through Government support for a new merchant fleet to give Britain that new leap ahead which she needs in world markets.
There is also the question of the "Queens". They are being talked about almost as airy-fairily as the queens in fairy tales. Will they remain the fairy tale of the 1960s or will they become a practicality? Perhaps they will not be the overblown ships of early days. Perhaps they will be longer, leaner, racier and smaller vessels, but, whatever they are, they must be of the

most up-to-date design. Whatever happens, one of them must come to Harland and Wolff. This would provide over the years a basic security for many of our workers who in the past have built some of the finest vessels which have ever sailed the seas. We should get a very fair measure of Government consideration in all these matters.
Apart from this economic problem, we have the problem of trying to educate our younger people in skilled trades, through apprenticeships, and in a particular craft which will give them a good living. Today, one of our big problems is that of the numbers of unskilled men standing about waiting for work. Our biggest problem is work for men. The figures and the percentages have been bandied about in this House in many different ways, but our figure for unemployed men is 8·8 per cent., although how it is possible to have ·8 of a man I do not know. These are the people about whom we are worried. If a man has a steady job and a wage packet in Northern Ireland his wife is only too glad to stay at home and fulfil her function of mother and wife instead of trying to support father if father has not the means to do it for the family.
The problem is to find work for the men and the young men of the future. We will not be able to do that unless the young men are trained. If there are too many apprenticeships, in the long run the same problem is created—too many skilled people looking for work which is not there. A vast number of young people are coming on to the labour market every year. However hard we work to catch up, we must face the fact that we can never take up the backlog of those still waiting for work while new people are coming along looking for work which is not there. It is not fair to expect the unions to agree to more and more apprenticeships if there is no prospect of young men getting skilled work after being trained.
Someone referred to Northern Ireland as a land of emigrants. That is not strictly true. In the past, we from these islands—from all parts, not excluding Scotland—have sent out people to populate and to start new ideas in underdeveloped parts of the world. We are still doing it today from Northern Ireland. We have no desire to run down


the population in our part of the world. What we want to do is to run up the work and when the two match, then, indeed, we will be the best part of the United Kingdom and the most secure.
One of the things which affects us greatly is transport. Everything that comes to the mainland, as we call it, or everything we bring from the mainland, has to come either by ship or by aircraft. Here we meet a serious part of our difficulty. It is not the same as in Scotland, where there is overland transport. It is not the same as in Wales, which has a similar situation and goods can go by road or by rail. Every time that anything goes to Northern Ireland, if it is heavy at all, it must be shipped. Everybody knows how costly that can be and sometimes how long that can take.
We have, however, a success story to tell. Our transport system has improved beyond recognition. The faith of people, not only of the British Transport Commission—

Mr. Pargiter: rose—

Mrs. McLaughlin: I cannot give way. I want to give the Minister time to reply. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have had a fair deal and I am sure that Northern Ireland appreciates it. I shall appreciate a fair deal, too.
In transport, a great deal has been done, both privately and through the Transport Commission, which has bought new ships and helped to develop new transport lines across the sea. Today, we can offer to industrialists a service which is much better than most of them expect. I hope, therefore, that when people talk about us and about the difficulties of going to Northern Ireland, they will remember that this serious difficulty is much less than people realise and that the matter of getting goods to and from is much quicker, safer and easier than it was even a few years ago.
We are shipping a much greater quantity of goods. It will interest hon. Members to know to what extent some of our products have increased. We have increased almost seven times since prewar our total agricultural output, and that is a very large increase. We have done that overall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) said, in so many of the things which

are useful, important and vital here to the people who enjoy the end-product of the hard work of the Ulster farmer.
There are many points concerning employment generally. Northern Ireland has suffered greatly every time there has been a recession. Between the wars, we had a great deal of difficulty to overcome. Then came the war. We put our heart and soul into it, the same as everybody else. Since the war, we have continued to develop and to exercise every means within our power and we have done our utmost to ensure that our part did not fail.
We cannot expect to make up the leeway in five minutes, but I have been in this House almost five years and, ever since I came here, it has been my business and responsibility, together with my colleagues from Northern Ireland, to see that our special position and needs were kept fully before the Ministers here and before the House.
At the time when the Britannic contract was given, it was interesting to note that, however much hon. Members opposite now express sympathy and great support for us, there was great criticism on the benches opposite about why the contract was given direct to Short's and why it was not given to another firm and the sub-contracts given to Short's to keep them going. That cannot be denied. These are the points which a debate like this provides an opportunity of making clear.
I hope that the Motion which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South has so ably brought forward will have given us an opportunity to make the up-to-date position of Northern Ireland quite clear, both in this House and outside. I hope that the Motion will have great value in pinpointing once again the difficulties of our part of the world and reminding people of the determination of our people to take their full share in hard work and what they expect as a result of it.
Perhaps in this instance one suggestion would be of value. Could the Board of Trade, through the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland, draw attention to facilities available abroad for people who wish to seek out new markets? I have found that there is a


certain amount of ignorance about the opportunities for trade and commerce and about what facilities are available in other countries.
I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion.

9.51 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I hope that the House will forgive a second ministerial intervention, but I can assure hon. Members that it is well within the rules of order, although I am bound to be as brief as was my right hon. Friend. It is only on a few occasions that we have the opportunity of debating affairs in Northern Ireland and there are some specific points which have been put since my right hon. Friend spoke and to which I wish to address myself.
We had a rather provocative speech from the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), but I hope that my hon. Friends will not be too disturbed by that. We know the hon. Member and on occasions we appreciate his somewhat good-humoured interventions. I am sorry that more of my hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have not been able to intervene in the debate, because I realise that their opportunities of speaking in the House are somewhat limited in that so many subjects which hon. Members debate from time to time are transferred subjects in the case of Northern Ireland. Thus an occasion like this provides my hon. Friends with an opportunity.
Despite what the hon. Member for Bermondsey said, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who diligently support the House and the Government. As the hon. Member knows, I have the support—

Mr. William Baxter: How many English hon. Members are present to support the Northern Ireland Members tonight?

Mr. Vosper: I was about to say that, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey knows, I have the support of two of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland on the Betting and Gaming Bill, which has now had 23 sittings. I am very grateful for their support on that Measure, which concerns a matter in which Northern

Ireland is two years ahead of Her Majesty's Government.
I should declare my interest, particularly as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) moved the Motion. I happen to have been married in his constituency and the house in which I now live is named after one of the most pleasant parishes in his constituency. I am, therefore, happy to be associated in a small way with this debate. I am also pleased to have had an invitation from the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland to visit Northern Ireland later this year and see some of the things of which my hon. Friends have spoken. I hope to see a little more of some of the problems which have been mentioned.

Mr. Mellish: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us about unemployment?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke in general terms of the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Government in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will appreciate that many of the matters which have been raised in subsequent speeches are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government and, in some cases, of other Government Departments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), whose maiden speech I much appreciated, spoke of Northern Ireland's major industry, agriculture. I am sure that his speech was more moderate in tone than the expressions of some of his farmers about the Price Review. He spoke with great knowledge of the subject. I appreciate the great importance of agriculture to Northern Ireland. It is primarily a transferred subject and is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, but it is covered by the Price Review which is undertaken on a United Kingdom basis.
I want to refer to the Price Review as it affects Northern Ireland. It has been suggested that Northern Ireland farmers are inefficient. The Price Review machinery allows for increasing efficiency among farmers in the United Kingdom to the extent of about £25 million per year. That is the basis of the Price Review and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh rather deprecated that. In


the latest Price Review, about £3 million of that efficiency margin was returned to the farmers. I appreciate his concern, but he knows that the Government have had to take account of the respective demands for food in relation to the supply.
The cost to the taxpayer of agricultural support has gone up from £241 million last year to £259 million this year. Of that amount, about £20 million accrues to Northern Ireland farmers by way of subsidies. We have made no major changes in production policy. The policy is not restrictionist, and we are not setting a low farm output target. I should like my hon. Friend, who has great influence in Northern Ireland, to understand that what we are trying to limit is the liability of the taxpayer.
My hon. Friend was concerned about several commodities with which I would not wish to weary the House at the moment, except in two respects. I realise the great interest of Northern Ireland's farmers in egg production, but their needs must be balanced against the threat of overproduction which would be more disastrous than the effect of the price cut in this Review. As we were told last night, the egg subsidy is now running at about £36 million a year, or about 1d. an egg. The cut that has been made in the Price Review is less than could have been effected, but I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates that the new arrangements for revised profit and loss sharing arrangements will be of benefit to the farmers. I accept his opinion that that has not been made sufficiently public.
My hon. Friend was also concerned, as Northern Ireland must be, about potatoes. Here there has been a price increase and he will note that Northern Ireland was mentioned in the White Paper in regard to new arrangements that will have to be made for the future.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that an additional grant of £1 million is made to agriculture in Northern Ireland on account of its remoteness. I have spoken about agriculture, because it is the basic industry in Northern Ireland.
In some respects, the problems to which hon. Members have addressed themselves—employment and industrial problems—spring from the fact that

employment in the agricultural industry is not as great as it was. Like my hon. Friend, I appreciate the seriousness of the employment position in Northern Ireland, and certainly no one would wish to be complacent about a percentage of 7·6 unemployed.
I think that the reasons for that situation were made clear by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). I think that the right hon. Gentleman did not share my hon. and gallant Friend's view that the geographical separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom was a contributing factor, but I am sure it must be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) referred to the fact that there are few natural resources, and the decline in the traditional industries of textiles, agriculture and shipbuilding all make this a difficult situation. Employment is a transferred subject and is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government, but Her Majesty's Government and their predecessors have always accepted that there is a responsibility on the Government in Westminster to do all that they can to assist.
Quite a few instruments are available for assisting in this problem. I liked the reference by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) to pull and push, because that is what happens. The Northern Ireland Government do the pulling, and the Government in Westminster help by way of pushing. The instruments available to the Northern Ireland Government to direct industry are considerable. My right hon. Friend referred to them. There is the capital grant available to existing industry at a rate that has recently been raised to 33⅓ per cent. There is the assistance under the Industries Development Acts, which are designed to attract new industries, to which the normal grant is 33⅓ per cent., and there are the new advance factories which have been built by the Northern Ireland Government. All these have been mentioned in the debate. They are all designed to pull industry to Northern Ireland.
Her Majesty's Government have always given Northern Ireland what used to be called development area treatment where


Government contracts were involved, and the Britannic—about which I shall say a word—is a case in point.
My right hon. Friend referred to the new arrangement whereby the Board of Trade will inform the Northern Ireland Government of firms who are refused I.D.C.s in this country. If they are willing, their names will be passed to the Northern Ireland Government, who can then offer inducement for them to go to Northern Ireland.
I have no time to deal with the financial aspect of the question. There is the Imperial contribution, the reduction of which makes more money available to the Northern Ireland Government. Then there is the Development Council. This is sometimes abused, but provided one remembers that it is an advisory body, designed to give publicity to the attractions of Northern Ireland, and not an executive body, one realises that it has achieved some good work. Taken together, these push and pull operations add up to a considerable amount. I know that it is the view of the Northern Ireland Government—a view which Her Majesty's Government share—that, taken together, they offer as much as, if not more than, is offered by the Local Employment Act operating in this country, in the way of inducing firms to go to Northern Ireland.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South asked for further consultation, but my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Blyth took the view—which seems also to be the view of the Northern Ireland Government—that facilities for consultations are at present adequate.
I was asked some specific points, most of which my right hon. Friend has referred to, but the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and one or two other hon. Members returned to the question of the dry dock. I cannot add anything to the very clear explanation which my right hon. Friend gave earlier. Again, I have been asked about Short's. Hon. Members want to know when the contract will be signed. I would like to be able to give a firm date before I sit down, but, as my right hon. Friend said, this matter involves many millions of pounds. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is

aware of the urgency of this matter— or if he was not aware of it before this debate I can assure the House that he will be made aware of it. But I cannot give a firm date in this debate.
I was also asked about amalgamation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation referred to this question on 15th February—

Mr. Pargiter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if this contract is not signed before long, such is the present rate of obsolescence that we shall require to start upon a new design?

Mr. Vosper: I will see that that consideration is brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend. As I was saying, my right hon. Friend referred to the question of amalgamation. He said that in view of the special position of Short and Harland's he did not think that amalgamation was a suitable course to take at the moment, but he said that he would watch the position and consult the Northern Ireland Government.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey asked about strip mills. That is a problem for the Northern Ireland Government. If they made an approach to Her Majesty's Government consideration would be given to the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West talked very seriously about shipbuilding, and I share her concern, coming as I do from the Merseyside area. In the remaining two minutes available to me she will not expect me to say more than that I will see that her words come to the notice of the appropriate Minister. She also made a special plea that one of the "Queen" liners should go to Belfast. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies may take different views, but, again, I can assure her that her plea will be noted.
Lastly, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Lieut.-Colonel Grosvenor) referred to the Border incidents. When I came to the Home Office, six months ago, I was given to understand that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies feared that the present winter would be a serious one, in view of the release of internees in the Republic of Ireland. That fear has proved unfounded, and I think that my


hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the recent winter has been the best one for several years in this respect.
The Government accept the Motion moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. The constructive comments which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House are welcomed here, as they will be in Northern Ireland. I, personally, look forward to seeing some of these problems at first hand later in the year.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the present state of Northern Ireland; deplores the continuance of armed raids across the United Kingdom border; views with concern the continuing high level of unemployment; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to continue their contacts and strengthen their support of the Government of Northern Ireland in their efforts to attract new industries and to ensure stable conditions in industry and agriculture.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE)

Dr. Horace King: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reaffirm the nation's decision, as laid down in the Education Act of 1944, that all children shall receive education in school to the age of sixteen; to name a date within the next decade for the raising of the school-leaving age; and to make plans for the provision of the extra teachers and classrooms necessary for this purpose—

Orders of the Day — POLIOMYELITIS (VACCINATION)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sharples.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I wish to take this opportunity to discuss the question of poliomyelitis vaccination, because I feel keenly about the success of the National Health Service and all its endeavours. I want it to succeed. It is in that constructive spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the maladroit way in which his Department dealt with the arrangements for poliomyelitis vaccination in February of this year. I am not criticising the intention or the results. I think all hon. Members would pay tribute to the excellent work done by the medical profession and all who have contributed to the excellent results which have been achieved. I am not criticising what has been done but the way in which it has been done—"It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it."
I submit that this excellent piece of work has been done in the wrong way. At Question Time on 1st February, the Minister, in response to Questions from hon. Members on this side of the House, announced that it was proposed to extend the scheme of poliomyelitis vaccination to all citizens up to the age of 40, and this was generally welcomed. The immediate result was that wide publicity was given to the statement, on television, in radio programmes and in the Press. The impression was left among people in this country that a service had been instituted as from 1st February and would be immediately available.
I realise that I cannot blame the Minister for the power of publicity in this day and age, but nevertheless a statement by him on such an important subject inevitably attracted a large body of public understanding and support, and naturally there were repercussions in the constituencies. We must always realise that the National Health Service is nation-wide. It affects every village and hamlet in the British Isles and an announcement made in London has to be administered in the far corners of the country. In this case it meant that, the decision having been taken and the policy decided, the


arrangements had to be carried out by county medical departments.
May I take as an example what happened in Middlesex and in my own constituency? The position was that the Minister made his announcement on 1st February. The area medical officer of health received his first intimation that it was proposed that there should be an extension by 4th February, but it was not until 24th February that the memorandum was issued by the county medical officer to his local area officers to say that the county council had decided to implement the scheme and that it was quite in order to go ahead.
In the meantime, each area medical officer was inundated by requests from general practitioners. I could name half a dozen in my constituency who are keen on this kind of preventive medicine and who communicated with the local medical officer of health requesting that the service should be extended and that they should be permitted to jab people.
In my area the general public started to worry the general practitioners and also, because in that area we are particularly occupationally health conscious, it meant that the personnel of local factories began to worry the local area officer of health. Telephone calls were received from a number of factories. We have pioneered part of this work, in close contact with the Middlesex Hospital, for the extension of preventive measures in connection with occupational health, and as a result there were many inquiries going to the local area officer.
I submit that, because it was done in this way, there was unnecessary work at local level and unnecessary frustrations and administrative difficulties which ought not to have occurred. My plea is that in all such cases the administrative arrangements to deliver the service should be made prior to the public announcement. That is the burden of my remarks this evening.
Even more important than the harm done in relations with the public is loss of good will between the Ministry and the medical profession. If the first that the local area officer hears about this is over the radio, he naturally feels a little put out. He feels some resentment and says, "No one has told me. Here is a State scheme which I have to operate and I have not been informed about it previously." Were this an isolated case

of Ministry mishandling in its relations with the profession, I think that perhaps a question which I put to the Minister perviously this month might have settled the problem.
Since its inception this particular aspect of the Ministry has been singularly unfortunate. The whole arrangements for polio vaccination have from the outset caused difficulties within the profession.
The British Medical Journal of 28th January, 1956, in a leading article headed "Another Ministry Blunder", said:
… we were most unfortunately kept completely ignorant of the details of the Ministry of Health's scheme and so were not in a position to Rive them to our readers.
This rather blistering article goes on to say:
It is deplorable that the Ministry should fail to give facts of such importance to the medical Press to enable it to report them, with informed comment, to the medical profession at least at the same times as the national papers report them to the public.
In the same issue there is a strong letter from a general practitioner in which he says:
I wish to protest most strongly at the manner in which news of polio vaccination was given to the medical profession; namely at a Press conference, through the B.BC. and in the morning papers.
This was four years ago, at the outset of the experiment. In April of that year, in the British Medical Journal there was another leading article attacking the Ministry on the way it handled the situation. On 20th October, 1956, there was yet another leading article attacking the right hon. Lady, who was at that time Parliamentary Secretary, which was indicative of the bad relations then existing between the medical profession and the Ministry of Health.
I should like briefly to make two other points in connection with polio arrangements. The hon. Lady will know of the frustration which the medical profession has felt during the last two years about the way in which payment is made to the general practitioner. If I understand the Minister's comment on 1st October correctly, doctors have given some 30 million injections of vaccine. It is a remarkable achievement, but in fact payment is all deducted from their pay at the end of the year. It is taken out of the central pool and they do this extra service for no additional payment.
A further unsatisfactory aspect of this matter is that, because of the arrangement, the doctor who sends in the form gets paid, but not necessarily the doctor who makes the jab. I do not wish to pursue this at very great length because the Minister is still investigating a specific case and will give me the answer in due course. It seems that the doctor employed by the local health authority has to give a number of jabs in a number of sessions to people in a factory, and then he finds that the factory doctor, who is already paid for his services elsewhere, is receiving the cash because he sent in the cards for those injections. It is things like this which have led to the slight friction which occurs from time to time between the Ministry and the medical profession.
Although this concerns only one section of the Ministry's activity, it indicates that there is something radically wrong with the way in which the Ministry has been handling professional arrangements. Again, going back four years, it was more the way in which the Ministry handled the doctors' pay claim —the "brush-off" they were given— which led to exasperation than the actual decision on the claim.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not just reply to the immediate issue raised, but that she will seek to influence her right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to have a complete overhaul of this section of his Department to secure greater coordination between the excellent work done in the Ministry and that done in the medical profession.
This will be vital in the coming months, because we shall be entering a period of closer relations between the profession and the Ministry. I believe that preliminary talks have started which will be of great significance to the National Health Service and for which a sense of great confidence is essential. We must avoid the kind of position made manifest in the British Medical Association's Council meeting in January. I am coming forward four years now. At that meeting, Mr. Lawrence Abel wondered whether it was any good going to the Minister of Health, because he was not in the Cabinet. That is an indication of the

lack of confidence which I think hon. Members on both sides of the House very much want to remove.
As I have said before, the time is ripe for sweeping advances in the National Health Service, not only for dealing with those suffering from very severe illness, but in preventive medicine. I believe the Government's poliomyelitis vaccination programme has made a worthy contribution in this matter, and it is therefore exasperating to find the effort marred by inept relations. I do not want to scratch old sores or reveal vaccination scars on any part of the body politic by going back four years, but I have to put this to the Minister if we are to get some change in the relationship between the Ministry and the profession.
At present, there is more cordial feeling between doctors and the Ministry than there has been for some time. There are the preliminary discussions on the Pilkington Report which, because of that, have got off to a good start. I am well aware of the sensitivity of the profession inside the State medical service and I want the Minister to improve his organisation of public relations to ensure that there is no more disgruntlement but a further phase of solid progress in the nation's health.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) began his speech with a generous tribute to the National Health Service, for which I should like to thank him. May I also take this early opportunity to thank him for his kindness in sending me a note of what he proposed to raise tonight so that I might be able to answer him.
Perhaps I should begin by filling in a little of the background to the arrangements for poliomyelitis vaccination, which began in 1956 in this country and under which a system of priorities has been operating. Initially, only some children and certain groups of hospital staff were offered vaccination. Later, in progressive stages, the offer was extended to all children, then to young people up to the age of 26 and, finally, earlier this year, to all persons up to the age of 40. At each stage certain special groups, for example, other Health Service employees who were at special risk and expectant mothers, were included.
These successive extensions have been made on the basis of advice given by the Joint Committee on Poliomyelitis Vaccine under the chairmanship of Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, in the light of the facilities available, including the supply of vaccine, and after consultation with the local health authority associations and the medical profession, upon whose efforts we rely to carry this very extensive programme into operation.
Broadly, the arrangements are these: the Minister is required, under the National Health Service Act, to approve any extension into a new field of a local health authority's arrangements for vaccination or immunisation. As the poliomyelitis vaccination programme has developed, he has from time to time given the necessary authority for its extension to those groups of the population which it has been possible to cover and has supplied the necessary vaccine free of cost to the authorities.
Local health authorities are then responsible for the arrangements for putting into operation the vaccination programme in their localities. The work of inoculation may be done by local authority doctors or by family doctors cooperating in these arrangements. General practitioners come into the picture because, in their arrangements for vaccination and immunisation generally, local-health authorities are required, under the National Health Service Act, to give every family doctor in their areas an opportunity to participate in their programmes.
I think that the House will agree that extensions to the poliomyelitis vaccination programme are of major public interest and importance and should not be regarded as minor administrative adjustments which are only of local concern. The Government certainly feel that the House, which, from the beginning, has shown great interest in the progress and success of this endeavour to give protection against a distressing disease, should be informed directly and as soon as possible of any impending major variations from previous arrangements.
On recent occasions the first announcements of the extensions to the programme have, therefore, been made in answer to Parliamentary Questions. Thanks to the Press, the radio and television services, these answers have received wide publicity and people

affected have thereby received early intimation that they would be able, if they wished, to be vaccinated.
The hon. Member said that he thought that those arrangements had been mishandled, and I should, therefore, like to explain briefly how they have worked. The first announcement that poliomyelitis vaccination would be available for children born in the years 1947-54 and for some hospital staff was made by Press notice at the same time as the circular was sent out to local authorities on 19th January, 1956. Consultations with local health authority associations and the British Medical Association were carried out confidentially in advance of the public announcement so that synchronisation was easy.
The first extension was in May, 1957, when the scheme was extended to children born in the years 1955–56. This step was announced by the Minister in the House on 15th May, the day after a circular was sent to local authorities. Again, consultations with local health authority associations and the British Medical Association had been carried out confidentially in advance of the announcement.
The second extension was in November, 1957, when the scheme was extended to children born in 1943–46, to expectant mothers and certain Health Service employees. Public interest in the programme, combined with apprehension about the supply position, was at such a high pitch that it was thought desirable for an encouraging statement to be made publicly at the earliest possible moment. The Press notice was, therefore, issued on 11th September that this extension would be made "before the summer of 1958." Consultations with local health authority associations and the British Medical Association were then needed before the circulars could be issued on 19th November, 1957, well in advance of the time suggested in the September Press notice.
The third extension to persons born between 1933 and 1942, and to some Health Service employees, and the provision of third doses for those earlier immunised, was forecast in the Minister's Answer to a Parliamentary Question on 21st July, 1958, when he said that he hoped to make a start on this extension


by the autumn. Once again, this statement was made at the earliest possible moment, because public interest in the programme was at a very high pitch. Consultations with local health authority associations and the British Medical Association were then needed, and the circular was issued on 2nd September.
The fourth extension of immunisation for persons up to 40 years of age and certain other small groups was announced in reply to a Parliamentary Question on 1st February this year, as the hon. Gentleman said, and, at the same time, a circular was sent to local health authorities. As public interest was not at such a high pitch, and advance notice of making the extension had been given in the Conservative Party election manifesto, it was again possible for consultations to be carried out confidentially before the public announcement was made, so that the announcement and the circulars could be simultaneous.
In general, and ideally, no public announcement would be made until final preparations for giving vaccination are completed. We have succeeded, save on two occasions in special circumstances which I have already mentioned, in eliminating the interval between public announcement and the issuing of circulars to local health authorities and executive councils by completing consultations with the associations beforehand. The remaining interval between the issue of circulars and a state of readiness in clinics and doctors' surgeries cannot be eliminated, because it is impracticable to release instructions confidentially to 146 local health authorities and thousands of individual doctors. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that all confidentiality would be lost if that were done.
In the last extension, the Parliamentary Question and Answer and the information given to the Press attracted, as the hon. Gentleman said, a wide volume of interest, and by this means notice of impending extensions of the programme was given to local health authorities and doctors and to those members of the public who became eligible, so that all concerned were, as nearly as possible at the same time, given clear information as to what was intended.
The hon. Gentleman has been critical of this procedure, but I would say,

in reply, that the Government see considerable advantage, from a publicity point of view, in making the first announcement of any changes in this programme a central, national one through Parliament and the Press. Indeed, I think the House might well have been critical had we not followed the usual practice of making the first announcement to Parliament when Parliament is in session, save perhaps if any urgent situation had arisen.
We have, in fact, provided general practitioners with full information, at every stage of the vaccination programme, about the groups to be covered, the vaccine available—Salk or British— and the vaccination procedures to be followed, to enable them to give appropriate advice to their patients. We have consulted the British Medical Association fully about the part which general practitioners can play in the programme, and about our further plans as disclosed from time to time in draft circulars.
I am quite sure that the House, and the hon. Gentleman in particular, will join with me in expressing pleasure at the considerable progress that has been made with poliomyelitis vaccination in this country. This has been made possible only by the hard work of local health authorities and family doctors, and by their very ready co-operation and response to this careful central planning of a national programme.
Perhaps, at this stage, I might refer to the hon. Gentleman's comment on what he calls the fee paid. He said that he did not agree that it should be deducted from the central pool of doctors' remuneration. The history of this goes back to 1949, when it was agreed that the fee for vaccination records—agreed, incidentally, between local health authorities and the British Medical Association—should be 5s. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this was in the days before poliomyelitis vaccine. That was the fee for any kind of vaccination.
Since doctors are paid on an average figure, estimated to cover the net remuneration from all sources, it follows that any net income they receive from other sources—such as hospitals, local health authorities, other Government Departments and private practice—has to be deducted from the central pool. That is the situation at present.
I wish to make one other brief point here. It refers to the hon. Gentleman's comment on factory doctors who may help with this service. We are aware of the one case where he has expressed concern. Inquiries are still being pursued and my right hon. and learned Friend will write to him, as he promised.
I welcome the opportunity the hon. Gentleman has given to me by choosing this subject for the debate, to pay this tribute, which he has already expressed, to those on whom the main burden has fallen. By the end of 1959, about 33 million injections of poliomyelitis vaccine had been made by the doctors of Great Britain. This is a tremendous achievement in such a short time, and those who have given these injections, as well as those who have been responsible administratively for organising the arrangements in the localities, have every reason to be well satisfied with the results of their efforts.
The summer of 1959 was one of the warmest and sunniest of the century. Previous experience has suggested that, in such summers, polio figures tend to go high. That so few cases were recorded during the year therefore

prompts the question of the extent to which anti-polio vaccination could claim the credit for this satisfactory outcome. One hesitates to claim too much credit, but since 1947, when polio first assumed, annually, widespread epidemic proportions in this country, we have had both bad years and relatively good years. But it is noteworthy that 1958, when vaccination against polio was well under way, should have been one of the good years and that 1959, by which year three out of four children under 15 had received at least two doses of vaccine, should have been even better.
I think that this is encouraging and I join with the hon. Gentleman in the very generous tribute he paid to all those who have helped to bring about this measure of progress. I hope that in discussing that part of the system which has caused him concern he feels a little more satisfied that we have done our utmost to maintain good relations and to show our appreciation of the considerable help we have enjoyed from the doctors who operate the practical part of the job.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.